Miss having friends in your forum? We've migrated over to discord! Many of the threads that started here years ago continue on in a new setting. Come join us!
Well, on an optimistic note, Dorkman said he replicated the settings PJ is using to shoot The Hobbit, and with minimal adjustment in post, was able to get a basically "normal" looking 24fps result out of it.
Maybe we should be thinking of all this as another gimmicky option we'll have at the theater, and little more.
As for questions of new episodes about this, this weekend there will not be "more on this as it develops," this weekend Cabin comes out. We won't even be recording. (Which was one of the main reasons we knocked out an insta-DIF two days ago; otherwise, we'd have to have waited two weeks!)
Sorry, I just wanted to hear this again. This was the last time Johnny did a damn thing worth talking about for this series. (And I really like and respect a lot of the latter prequel music. But seriously.)
In fact, this is what "faster and more intense" sounds like when you say it to John Williams.
Are lightsabers considered canon if you don't name them?
We'll find out, certainly the sound effects would become something someone somewhere has a meeting about.
Remember, that non-parody Star Wars fanfilms happen at all is because George made it a corporate policy to back the fuck off. Disney is not known for being as cool.
If anyone has, like, planned their Halloween around having our commentary for Cabin in the Woods, get in touch with me and I'll send you an early copy. Otherwise - whoopsies, wrong order.
Sam, I highly, highly recommend reading the series of articles DIF forumer Jeff Harrell wrote about FCPx as that whole thing was going down back in June. Really well written and funny (I just enjoy reading it), and he goes wonderfully into explanations for his opinions, and so far as testing out other programs for the first time to see what the solution is for editors moving away from the FCP ecosystem, etc..
Fun stuff. I'm sure the program has been thoroughly debugged since, but the Wiki page says the "stable release" date was five days ago, so, consider it infotainment reading if nothing else.
Well, it's not a huge-huger deal, just something a lot of DIF folks have been around for. Dorkman directed, Ryan shot it, Jeffery Harrell is editing it, me, Paulou and Miki were around and on set doing stuff, and it stars Anthony from the Spider-Man commentaries.
For the uninitiated, this was last night on the set of our movie "Hunter" that's gonna be online soon, with Ryan and Brandon Flyte having some fun while setting up lights.
Although now that I think about it, if what we're seeing is the movie that Marty's written, the semi-post-credits sequence with Zachariah shouldn't be there.
Yup. I was baffled, momentarily, when the movie DIDN'T end with the title card they agreed upon.
Then that scene happened, and I was confused again.
Thing one, Hans wasn't the murderer-cum-born-again-Christian, he was the father who tormented him. I'm not sure how you could get confused on that, they even revisit the moment of the throat-slitting later and put him in Harry Dean Stanton's place, with his wife at his side. Then show him getting his neck seen to at the hospital. And if I remember correctly, it's the Harry Dean Stanton tormenting father who gets labeled as the second psychopath, not the born-again Christian. He's also the one written down on the list, Marty keeps crossing out the religion.
Are you...sure? Because it's already getting hazy for me, the way that reveal-montage worked, but I distinctly recall thinking the white-man-black-woman combo out the window was not Hans and his wife, but Zachariah and his black ladyfriend. I wish the Wiki had the plot written down, or I could watch that scene again.
Second thing, I never came away with the sense that the script Marty writes in the movie is the movie we're seeing. ... The Vietnamese guy was obviously intended to be an actual character in the screenplay Marty was writing.
Okay, check this out: the Vietnamese guy didn't exist, and Charlie did. There were two endings to the movie in the movie - the one joke ending Billy talks about, and how the movie actually ends. In the joke ending, if the argument is "this is a potential way Billy sees his life going in the immediate future," then the Vietnamese guy shouldn't be in there because he's not real. If the argument is "this is how Marty should end his movie," then Charlie shouldn't be in there whining about his dog, because that's what's really happening to them, not part of the script.
Unless is is a part of the script, which is an indication that the movie Marty is writing is the one we're watching.
I've gotten into the habit lately of not watching trailers, or at least not finishing them, once I've decided I'm interested in a movie. If I get a little ways into it and start to think "this looks fun," I stop watching, and pick up where I left off in a theater seat somewhere. This has generally been a positive trend, and it's one I'll continue. The downside is, I might have gotten the wrong read off of what I saw in the trailer when I decided Seven Psychopaths was one of those films.
In the interest of this post, I stopped after writing the above paragraph to go watch the trailer. Nope, I got the right read alright. The trailer is just not particularly indicative of what happens in the movie.
For instance, here's something you probably didn't catch in the trailer, as it's underplayed to the point of not being there: the whole movie is a Charlie Kaufman-esque "a character in the movie is writing the movie you're seeing" kind of thing. Shit, man, that should have been in the trailer, that'd be the defining selling point for me. Any degree of meta-commentary, from an unreliable narrator to an impossibly on-the-nose genre savvy farce, is my candy. Can't get enough of it.
The problem, and this is the wonky foundation upon which the rest of the movie is built, is that it doesn't play at all. The relationship between the movie we're watching, the movie the character is writing, and the stories the character is pulling from his real life to use in the movie he's writing that we're seeing, starts off baffling and never gets any easier to understand.
The actual events portrayed in the movie seem to untangle as follows - this is an attempt to explain the movie at large, not the plot as it occurs: a writer, Marty (Colin Farrell, one assumes adopting the nickname of writer/co-director Martin McDonagh) is trying to get his screenplay off the ground, for which he has a title - Seven Psychopaths - but little else. He semi-enlists the help of his best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell), insofar as Billy comes up with a couple great ideas for psychopaths to fill out the roster. One is a psychopathic paroled murderer-cum-born-again-Christian who was tormented by the father of his victim until killing himself with a knife to the throat, the other is a mob assassin who only kills fellow members of the mob, leaving behind a Jack of Diamonds playing card at the scene. Billy, it should be noted now, is partnered up with a man named Hans (Christopher Walken), and together they kidnap dogs to collect rewards for finding them. Billy steals the dog of his girlfriend's other boyfriend, a tough guy named Charlie (Woody Harrelson), ostensibly because Billy doesn't like the way Charlie treats said girlfriend. Charlie turns out to be a psychopath himself, but doesn't make the list at this point, as Marty doesn't know about him yet. At this point, Marty has two psychopaths, and thusly Billy posts an ad in the paper calling all psychopaths to tell Marty their stories. From this we get one additional psychopath, Zachariah (Tom Waits), who in a previous life was a serial killer killer. Two "killers," there - he killed serial killers and only serial killers. Cute, right? Along the way we end up with a cobbled together invention of fourth (fifth) psychopath, a Viet Kong Catholic priest hellbent on revenge, and... I think that's it in terms of psychopaths, a word I'm sick of typing.
Turns out, the murderer-cum-born-again-Christian is Hans, and the Jack of Diamonds mob killer is Billy - who took the ideas for these psychopaths from his real life and from Hans's. Once Woody Harrelson ends up in Marty's world, that brings us up to five. I don't want to be nitpicky about the number of psychopaths, but I do want to be nitpicky about the story that's being told.
Because with end-of-the-credits retrospect, we learn that the chain of events for Marty went as follows: has idea for a movie called Seven Psychopaths, a psychopath he happens to know (but didn't know was a psychopath) gets involved, and things avalanche into a whole big terrifying problem filled with psychopaths, which he later uses as the story for the movie Seven Psychopaths, which we are watching. This is complicated and difficult to understand, in terms of cause and effect, but not the most alienating framework to ever happen in a movie. And it plays, it should be noted, without ever breaking the fourth wall or using narration - though there is a lengthy scene wherein an insane Billy pitches an ending for the "movie," using a mixture of characters invented for Marty's script and characters from which they are currently running, and interpersonal conflicts invented for Marty's script and interpersonal conflicts for which they are currently scheming.
This, all of this, is rather fucking insane. And that might be the biggest problem - I wonder if this movie would have worked better as a slightly different beast. Entirely insane, not rather insane. Not a whipsmart, too-clever-by-half Kiss Kiss Bang Bang-ian character piece, but a trippy, Gilliam/Lynch reality-comes-apart movie. It could almost use the exact same script, with the exception of Marty himself. The not-quite involved, not-quite innocent Mary Sue character that reminds us all too clearly of Charlie Kaufman, the character in Adaptation, would need to be more of a Raoul Duke, Hunter S. Thompson sort of deal. And the questions of "what the fuck is going on here" would seem more like stylistic "reality unbends around a character we don't know if we can believe" sort of choice, instead of being... well, confusing, mostly.
But now I'm Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
This movie has a lot to offer. Many actors you love to watch chew up the scenery chew up the scenery - least of all, oddly, Christopher Walken, who actually ends up in a beautiful and sympathetic place by the time things wrap up - and many of the lines are laugh-out-louders. And if you stop trying to figure out what the hell is going on, you might just be better off, and I fault you none for it. Alas, I felt problems with pacing throughout the filmwatching experience, where I couldn't tell if the story was on or off the ground or if what I was watching was related to everything else I was watching, and my experience suffered for it.
I guess I'm really disappointed in this, the more I think about it. It's just sort of a mess. His previous film, In Bruges, was amazing and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I feel bad about shitting on this movie. But it turns out, all the Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Tom Waits, funny lines, meta humor and clever ideas in the world can't get me over the hump on Seven Psychopaths. The movie that we end up with is an oddball - glowing with promise ultimately unfulfilled.
And god damn, I want to see the movie the trailer was made for. That one sure looks like a winner.