Ryan Kwanten Battles Dinosaurs in Vietnam in ‘Primitive War' Trailer (Exclusive)
Luke Sparke's upcoming sci-fi horror pic is based on Ethan Pettus' book where American soldiers in an elite unit in Vietnam discover their enemies are not all human. 'Three days ago, I lost my Green berets. There was something going on in that battle,' Piven's character says at one point in the trailer.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Cannes: Jeremy Piven to Lead Supernatural Gladiator Actioner 'Fight for Your Life' (Exclusive)
#MeToo, Five Years Later: No One's Fully Returned From "Cancellation" - No, Not Even Louis C.K. (Analysis)
Dolph Lundgren, Scott Adkins and Ryan Kwanten to Face Off in Action Movie 'Section Eight' (Exclusive)
A logline from the film's producers adds about the mystery: 'Set in Vietnam in 1968, the Primitive War movie will follow a search and rescue team known as Vulture Squad sent to an isolated jungle valley to reveal the fate of a missing Green Beret platoon. As they hunt through the primordial depths of the valley and the casualties mount, the Vulture Squad members must embrace their savage instincts to survive the horrors they face, including the ultimate Apex predators, dinosaurs.'
Australian director Sparke helmed, co-wrote the adapted script, produced, edited and production designed Primitive War. The ensemble cast includes Tricia Helfer, Nick Wechsler, Ana Thu Nguyen and Jake Ryan.
'Dinosaurs in the Vietnam war? What's not to love about that concept?! When I first heard about the books, I loved the ideas and concepts Ethan brought into them, and we're shaping our film version into an exciting survival-horror film,' Sparke said in a statement when first taking on the project in 2022.
The Primitive War historical sci-fi military novel series includes Primitive War II: Animus Infernal and the upcoming third installment Primitive War III: Aeon Ouroboros. Carly Imrie, Zachary Garred and Alex Becconsall will produce the Primitive War film as they reteam with co-producer Sparke after Occupation: Rainfall, the franchise sequel that follows a group of survivors in Sydney fighting a desperate war two years after an extraterrestrial invasion.
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
The 10 Best Baseball Movies of All Time, Ranked
20 Times the Oscars Got It Wrong
The Best Anti-Fascist Films of All Time
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
33 minutes ago
- Scientific American
180 Years of Standing Up for Science
I have been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old. I think if I could ask that kid if he expected to see his name in the magazine one day, he'd say yes, but he would be surprised to find it on this particular page and not in one of the stories of great discoveries that follow. He wanted to grow up to be an astrobiologist and was certain the SETI program would discover an extraterrestrial radio signal soon; the only doubt he would have had was whether he'd be lead scientist in the subsequent SciAm article or only a junior member of the team. Of course, SETI is still searching, and my name is on this page, not among the world's great scientists. But I could not be more thrilled and honored to introduce myself as Scientific American 's new editor in chief. I was lucky to grow up in a time when science was celebrated and great communicators told American children that science was not only a worthy career but also exciting and cool. I could turn the television to PBS and watch Carl Sagan in Cosmos or Alan Alda in Scientific American Frontiers; flip it to the news, and I'd see space shuttle liftoffs, high-temperature superconductors and the launch of the Human Genome Project. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Unfortunately, the world of today is increasingly hostile to science. Our leaders deny the existence of human-driven climate change and vilify vaccines that have saved hundreds of millions of lives. Schools lack funding for STEM courses, and budgets are slashed at leading research institutions such as the NIH, NASA and NOAA. Earlier this year I spoke to a top-of-the-class postdoc who'd given up on the idea of securing a position at their U.S. alma mater and instead was weighing offers to relocate to Europe or China. That makes Scientific American more important than ever. In our very first issue, dated August 28, 1845, editor Rufus Porter offered the publication as an advocate of science and industry and promised it would 'instruct while it diverts or amuses.' My goal as editor in chief is to uphold those values, to stand up for science, to promote its application in industry, and to help educate and inspire new generations of young scientists. I hope to ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery and that it supports working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized. Given this context, I'm particularly excited that my first issue as editor in chief marks the 180th anniversary of Scientific American. Our celebration begins with an outstanding collection of stories about times when science itself has made 180-degree turns, including by abandoning ideas such as that light is a wave traveling through 'aether,' that nerves don't regenerate, and that the expansion of the universe is slowing. The anniversary party continues online, so don't forget to check out our website at over the course of the coming months, too. In our cover story, journalist Maryn McKenna looks at the perplexing world of peanut allergies. Food reactions are probably as old as time, and researchers now estimate that they affect one out of 10 Americans overall and two kids in every classroom. But peanut allergies didn't become widespread until the 1990s. Thankfully, remarkable new treatments might free millions of people from the deadly threat of anaphylaxis or even end food sensitivities once and for all. It's an extraordinary example of the way that science can make the world a better place. And that's the perfect way to kick off our next 180 years. I'm glad that I have this soapbox to stand on at a time when our nation hungers for meaningful discovery and the scientific community needs everyone's support. I hope you'll stand with me. Scientific American helped shape the way I look at the world. It has always educated and delighted me, and I suspect it's done the same for you, too. I'm looking forward to exploring the future together.
Los Angeles Times
33 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
One Shot: ‘American Primeval' didn't try to create beauty, but to find it
Cinematographer Jacques Jouffret photographed 'American Primeval' to reflect its sparse 1857 Utah environment, as a mother (Betty Gilpin) and son (Preston Mota) travel across untamed lands to reunite with her husband. 'They don't have much to eat, much clothes or transportation. They have to live in the elements, and we used that from a camera standpoint. No big equipment, most of it handheld. A very straightforward approach to create a connection between the characters and camera,' says the French native, who collaborated with director Peter Berg on the raw, unflinching imagery. 'I wanted to give as much information in the frame as I could. We are going to be wide and we're going to be close, but let's not have empty spaces,' he says about the series' visceral texture. He adds: 'We never tried to say, 'Let's do a beautiful shot.' What we tried to do is see what happened and find the beauty in the frame.' The series' visual motifs, created with the help of camera operators Brett Hurd and Richard Coy Aune, reinforce the unsettling conditions behind the settlement of the American frontier: 'There are many different factions fighting it out, and from that violence, you never know who is going to win. We are on shaky ground, and the constant Dutch angles left or right are a reflection of that,' he says.
Scientific American
33 minutes ago
- Scientific American
The Search for Extraterrestrial Life Is a Roller Coaster of Hope and Disappointment
In the late 1800s Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli pointed a telescope at Mars and saw something curious: linear features that he called canali, meaning 'channels' or 'grooves.' A mistranslation of that word helped lead to a widespread belief that the planet closest to Earth hosted a civilization. American astronomer Percival Lowell took Schiaparelli's observations and ran with them. He became obsessed with the Martian markings, which he interpreted as evidence of a sophisticated network of water-transportation channels. 'That Mars is inhabited by beings of some sort or other we may consider as certain as it is uncertain what those beings may be,' Lowell wrote in his 1906 book Mars and Its Canals. It sounds ludicrous now, but it wasn't back then. At the time, ideas about life were evolving rapidly, says David Baron, author of the new book The Martians: The True Story of an Alien Craze That Captured Turn-of-the-Century America. In 1858 Charles Darwin published his theory of natural selection. One year later German scientists Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff invented the spectroscope, which they and others used to analyze the chemical signatures in light from the sun and the planets. These studies revealed that other worlds are made of the same elemental constituents as Earth. If life evolves by a natural process, and all planets form in similar ways, why wouldn't life take hold on the Red Planet, too? On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. More than 100 years later scientists searching for extraterrestrial life are guided by the same reasoning: The universe is vast, and it's all made of the same basic stuff we are, so why wouldn't there be life elsewhere? Yet the evidence for intelligent life beyond Earth has taken several turns. In fact, the only constant has been hope: the desire that many people have to prove we are not alone. The question of extraterrestrial life's existence isn't just a neutral scientific debate—it matters to humans, including the humans searching for that life. And our optimism that we'll find it has tended to flip on and off. The idea that Mars is home to canal-digging civilizations began to lose its sparkle in 1909, when French astronomer Eugène Antoniadi observed the Red Planet during one of its biannual close approaches. The lines, he found with a better telescope and a more intimate view, were an optical illusion. Those data didn't convince Lowell, and it didn't put the theory to rest—in 1916 Scientific American managing editor Waldemar Kaempffert was still convinced the canals were real. Nevertheless, belief in advanced life on Mars faded in the following decades. When the Mariner 4 spacecraft flew by Mars in 1964, relaying images of a dry and desolate world, the Martian hypothesis died for good. And the signs weren't promising for extraterrestrials elsewhere, either. In 1950 physicist Enrico Fermi had pointed out what he called the 'Great Silence': If life is likely to be plentiful, then where is everybody? The fact that humanity hadn't heard from other intelligent beings became known as the Fermi paradox. Maybe life is common, but advanced life is rare, scientists suggested. Or perhaps other civilizations arise often and then destroy themselves, as humanity seemed newly capable of doing after the invention of the atomic bomb in 1945. Astronomers began a more systematic study of the question. In 1960 Cornell University researcher Frank Drake started Project Ozma, which used a radio telescope to scan for broadcasts from two distant star systems. In 1977 astronomers caught a batch of radio waves that blasted out for 72 seconds, looking more like a hugely powerful cosmic radio station than something natural. They called it the WOW! Signal and got excited. But the same transmission was never heard again. So far the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has not found convincing evidence of broadcasting aliens. Yet lately there are new reasons to hope. In 1992 astronomers Aleksander Wolszczan and Dale Frail discovered two rocky worlds circling a dense, rotating star called a pulsar. Although those planets are bombarded with too much radiation to be habitable, more exoplanet discoveries trickled in through the 2000s. Then the Kepler space mission launched in 2009. It revealed thousands of worlds beyond this one, with more than 5,900 total confirmed as of publication time. 'Planets became the rule, not the exception,' says Nathalie Cabrol, director of the Carl Sagan Center for the Study of Life in the Universe at the SETI Institute. This wealth of worlds once again changed the calculus on the likelihood of life beyond Earth. Back in 1965 Drake developed a formula to calculate the odds of communicating with extraterrestrial civilizations. It factored in the rate of star formation, the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of those that are habitable, the proportion of habitable planets that actually develop life, the proportion of that life that becomes intelligent, the fraction of civilizations that develop communications technology, and the length of time they are likely to be transmitting. Most of those variables were unknown at the time—and still are—but the exoplanet boom helped to narrow down the second variable, and it's making headway on the third. We now have a much better idea of how many stars host planets, and it's at least most of them. We still don't know how life started here on Earth, so we don't know how it might happen elsewhere. And we don't know how likely advanced civilizations are to destroy themselves—a pressing question for reasons beyond SETI. But we do now know that primitive life can thrive in profoundly inhospitable conditions, and that means that microbial aliens may be a lot easier to find than intelligent ones. In 1966 ecologist Thomas Brock discovered the first extremophile, Thermus aquaticus, living in the hot pools of Yellowstone. Since then, scientists have found microscopic organisms in hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean and in toxic mine waste, in the interiors of rocks and in radioactive water. Just because a planet looks barren doesn't necessarily mean that it is. There is good reason to think primitive life could survive in the buried oceans of Jupiter's moon Europa and the geysers of Enceladus, a moon around Saturn. There might even be microbes in the pools of meltwater under the ice caps of Mars. More than a century after Percival Lowell and his illusory Martian civilization, science has given us plenty of reason to think we're not alone, even if aliens turn out to be single-celled organisms rather than canal-building architects.
