Heh, let's see if I can boil that down into an actual law...
Stokes' Corollary: If all possible explanations are bullshit, just pick the one you like best.
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Trey
Heh, let's see if I can boil that down into an actual law...
Stokes' Corollary: If all possible explanations are bullshit, just pick the one you like best.
I am on your side in that that's a terrific gut-punch of a movie idea, just that it's not the right idea to tack onto Gravity. Which, as Darth P said, is built from the ground up as a story about rebirth and the will to live.
On the other hand, that OTHER movie is built from the ground up as a tale about how risk is necessary for mankind to progress, even though that means some of our attempts will fail. So the ending fits.
If it's a performance piece, I think the better analogy is Andy Kaufman, who made himself the "bad guy" so convincingly that a lot of his audience ended up legitimately disliking him.
But I don't think this is a "performance" either, it's just that the alternative seems just as crazy. How is it possible that this guy, who's been working in showbiz at the highest levels since he was a damn kid, could think he could make a ripoff of somebody else's thing and get away with it?
The only reason a ridiculous explanation sounds almost plausible is that so far there's no non-ridiculous explanation.
That would have made a fine indie movie. It would have made about eleven dollars at the box office.
In fact, they did make that movie this year, it was called
Now he's getting warmer....
I assume Avatar meant there's no actual firing happening tho. Which I hope not, since no one's wearing ear protection.
Even in the fan film world, it's not like we pretended we came up with the shit ourselves. I mean, most fan films went so far as to credit Ben Burtt for creating the lightsaber sounds we hacked together.
That's ri- wait, what? *runs away*
Anyway, it's just so odd to me why he would think he'd get away with it. Even if he'd plagiarized something one-tenth as well known as Clowes' comic, THIS IS THE INTERNET. There's always somebody who'll recognize it. "Naivete" just doesn't seem like enough to 'splain it.
Well, now Patton Oswalt and other Twitterati have a hold of this one, so Shia's gonna be in internet jail for a bit.
Those are 4x4 double-net flags, usually they get hung up in front of lights to soften the output a bit. In this case I think your guess is most likely correct- they're cutting the sunlight so the camera op can see his screen better.
He's chalking it up to "excitement and naiveté as an amateur filmmaker". Not sure that's going to fly...
https://twitter.com/thecampaignbook
So basically he made a fanfilm.
Philosopher + Sorcerer = Philoserer
Personally I would have gone with Philocerer, but that's me.
That was a good one, but personally I like him even more in U-571.
Jonze, Aronofsky, Nolan, Fincher, Cuaron, Tarantino for the more mainstream guys.
I now live in a world where those are the "mainstream guys"?
Truly, I have lived too long and seen too much.
He's very good in Mud and exceptionally good in Dallas Buyer's Club. He's won a number of awards for the latter already and is a solid candidate for a Best Actor nom this year.
True, his role in DBC is pure Oscar bait. "Are you thought of as just a handsome actor? Well, lose or gain a lot of weight, play a complex character in a movie about An Important Topic, boom! You Are Nominated!"
But that formula only really works if the performance is also good, and he's very good in it.
And I've always liked him too, even if not all of his films are winners.
Unless he's making a Batman flick, Nolan movies never have a conventional bad guy. Memento and Insomnia certainly don't, and who's the bad guy in the Prestige? Both main characters, pretty much. Maybe one of them is a tiny bit less crazypants than the other, is all.
Another thing I love about Nolan is he has no use for the Campbellian "call to adventure/refusal of the call" standard opening act. Nolan protagonists know what they want and are already going after it at full throttle when we see them for the first time.
Which goes to show that you really don't have to follow the "rules" of movie storytelling to be successful. But you better be Chris Nolan. And that's why you don't see Inception ripoffs. No one knows how to make one.
Or at least no one has the clout to get one made. There was a very insightful article written awhile back (i forget where I saw it) that said Inception is the kind of flick that studios don't want to make. It's unconventional and complicated, and requires the audience pay attention.
Sure, it might be a good movie but that's the problem - it'll actually have to be a good movie to work. Studios would much rather risk their 100 million on an Avengers sequel or whatever, because that doesn't have to be a good movie to make money.
I'm all for melodrama with 'splosions, I just don't want it to come in the form of another fucking Batman or Avenger movie. Edge of Tomorrow may or may not have a great story, but at least it's a story I haven't already heard.
Looks good to me, and I like Liman's stuff in general. Cautiously optimistic.
btw, "Edge of Tomorrow with Tom Cruise" sounds like the title of a syndicated talk show that would air around 2 AM.
Trey wrote:Not sure I've ever seen all of Brain Donors, but I know I've seen some of it.
Is there a sight gag where one of the characters crosses his fingers and they're all twisted up in an impossible way?
Yes.
Okay, cool. I ask because although I've never seen that shot, I puppeteered the fingers. It was a one-day gig - Steve Johnson built the effect and hired me to perform it. I got sent to the location with a rubber arm, we set it up and did the shot and that was it. I never saw the final movie all the way through, so I've never been sure if it made the cut.
There's no more to the story than that, but it was still pretty awesome to be on a set with Barton Fink and the Albino from Princess Bride.
Didn't hate it, liked a lot about it - mostly the period re-creations. Coupla good jokes, Emma Thompson is fun and Hanks Hankses as good as always.
Obviously a Disney movie isn't going to take a warts-and-all approach to a Disney story... I was a bit surprised how far they did go with showing that not everything was perfect during the making of Poppins. But ultimately the movie couldn't seem to decide if it wanted be cynical or uplifting, and ends up neither/nor.
Mostly it made me think how Disney is lucky that their studio looks almost exactly as it did when Walt roamed there - it makes an ideal location for a movie about Disney history. Maybe they should use this as the start of a Hanks-as-Walt franchise. Next Christmas: the hilarious tale of Walt's struggle to make The Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin.
Is there a franchise that goes on for more than three films that that isn't true of? About the only counter-example I can think of is Harry Potter, because they're all based directly on a series of books by one author.
And to a lesser extent, the Bond series.
Aside from those, most every long-running franchise is just a series of attempts by various people to wring more money out of a brand in whatever way they think will work.
Not sure I've ever seen all of Brain Donors, but I know I've seen some of it.
Is there a sight gag where one of the characters crosses his fingers and they're all twisted up in an impossible way?
Not sure if the "Catholic branch" of the Academy is a significant voting bloc or not...
Philomena is mostly buzzing for an Actress nom for Judi Dench, which seems likely.
BTW, the SAG nominations were announced today and they're a decent indicator of what the Oscar trends will be, so have a look if you're interested.
No real surprises there that I can see - though I am bummed to see Redford skipped over for Best Actor and Tatiana Maslany not get a nod for Actress in a Drama.
That's also possible. It'll probably get a few acting nominations as well, especially Oprah for Supporting Actress, which she deserves.
I agree with all of that with regards to Abrams' first Trek movie. That's exactly what I said at the time, that Abrams made Trek fun again. However, he managed to do it without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But Into Darkness bent the rules beyond their breaking point.
And really, I would piss on any movie that played such silly games with science as Into Darkness did. It was just extra enraging that it had the name Star Trek on it.
Quick update: Inside Llewyn Davis is a fun little piece of work - with a good shot at a cinematography nomination and maybe a few others - but not amazing enough to change my Top Five.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Trey
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.