901

(66 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I haven't watch the video in question, but during TS3, I felt like it wasn't as original as the previous two and wasn't "necessary". Both TS2 and TS3 feel like the makers said, "Andy isn't going to play with Woody and Buzz forever, right? Isn't there more tale to tell?" But TS1 basically established that a boy never forgets or stops loving his toys even tho he stops playing with them, and that's enough to close the story. (It's not like every drama ends with the main character dying even tho, you know, everybody dies.)

Regardless, TS3 is a good story well told and is emotionally effective.

902

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Simon: "Many movies are too violent. This is one of them. Movies should be like Huck Finn. Also, Disney animated movies suck. I didn't understand what was going on. Get off my lawn."

S&E: "Lighten up, dude. Not everything needs to be Ingmar Bergman."

Simon: 0 S&E: 2.

BTW, Huck Finn totally falls apart at the end. Twain brings Tom Sawyer in to stir things up and then just goes "Good news! All the villains are dead!"

903

(25 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Teague wrote:

Alright movie. Tell me your story.

What do you mean? The trailer just DID tell you the story: Boy meets upside down girl. Boy loses girl because of police and gravity. Boy goes after girl. Police and gravity go after boy.

The only thing in question is whether the final shot in the trailer depicts a final, tragic loss or [gasp!] the final obstacle to overcome before their miraculous reunion for—I'm gonna say "jet pack fucking"

Plus there's some kind of "falling" metaphor, I think. I don't know what that's about.

904

(124 replies, posted in Episodes)

I have to imagine that the hard part of being Rian Johnson or Christopher Nolan or whomever is that lots of people tell you they loved the movie AND THEY DID. And other people say that your movie has very fundamental things wrong with it and it "doesn't work" or doesn't work as well as it should.

But if he made the movie KNOWING that people who care about writing are going to say it has structural problems, and he didn't care, then it's his problem. There's no such thing as an hour-long discussion about a movie that makes you understand that it's not clunky.

905

(108 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I think I've been ticketed for speeding at least 30 times, the top being 91 in a 65, I think. That can't be average.

I PREDICT THIS WILL NOT SURPRISE TEAGUE

Most famous or favorite celebrity encounter?

906

(124 replies, posted in Episodes)

Right. Story is story, and Looper is two completely different (but interesting) stories squashed together.

Given that he wanted to tell the story of Joe's arc from frumpy to fabulous, he should have had the second half echo the first half in the same setting. The cruising and clubbing and such should have become going on the lam and hiding out IN THE CITY where Young Joe is comfortable and might find Old Joe. He'd encounter many of the same people, now with circumstances very changed. Maybe somebody that he bullied before is the very person he has to ask for help, and so on.

Johnson spent the first half of the film setting up a really interesting world with specific rules and then had his main character leave that world and ignore those rules until the very end. I found that really frustrating.

It's the case of a highly skilled storyteller making one or two fundamental structure mistakes that style and character development can't make up for. It's the opposite of Hudson Hawk, which was a well-structured story badly told.

907

(108 replies, posted in Off Topic)

This is so weird.

I came out of the Bank of America on Sunset and Vine once to find a homeless woman bent over the trashcan rummaging through food.  She was wearing short terri cloth shorts, and lets just say her figure wasn't flattering to begin with, especially since half of her ass crack was visible.  The part of me that still is a 12 year old shit head trying to impress the awful kids in his school screamed loud enough to echo inside my skull, "PANTS HER!"

And I DID, and she was so shocked she dropped 40 bucks. And I was like, "CRACK KILLS!" and high tailed it back to my office, 40 smackers richer.

What's the most unusual thing you've ever owned?

908

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

By "original", the imaginary movie studio head just meant stuff that wasn't from traditional comic books, the '80s, or a hugely popular book series.

He didn't mean ORIGINAL original. That's contrary to the idea of starting with proven material, except where the writer himself is a proven commodity.

That movie was brutal. I had to stop it from time to time to gather the patience to go on. I'm sure it had some kind of point, but wow was it lost on me.

I like most of Charlie Kaufman's other stuff, tho.

910

(124 replies, posted in Episodes)

Star Wars is an interesting case, because—forget "Anakin built C-3P0"—Ep 4 HAS TWO MAGIC BEANS. In addition to space travel, the Force is introduced early and becomes the B story to the A story of rescuing the princess and saving the Rebellion.

But that B story of Luke learning about the Force is developed all the way along until, at the end, it merges with the A story: use the Force TO save the Rebellion.

Looper sort of tries to do that when...

at the end... Show
Young Joe kills himself. He uses time travel to stop the TK monster.

That's fine. You don't need to tie them together more closely than that. The problem is that the A story (Young Joe messes up and must find and kill Old Joe) is totally abandoned in the second half of the movie. That's because Rian Johnson was NEVER interested in that story. He wanted to tell the B story all along (Young Joe learns to be a better man).

The other missteps are 1) Old Joe hung up his guns and seems to have become a better man; he should have STILL been a bastard and 2) the Rainmaker and his monstrous evil are never shown; in fact, the future looks a damn sight nicer than the present.

911

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

1) Every movie is a crap shoot. The only thing you can do to shift the odds is to start with proven material and hire proven cast and crew. Disney is doing that.

2) Hollywood in general is desperately trying to give you people exactly what you want as fast as they can, as well as they can.

You liked the superhero stuff? Here—have a dozen more. You didn't like Hulk? We'll MAKE IT OVER AGAIN. You like cerebral sci fi like Philip K Dick? Here's Inception, Looper, Total Recall, Chronicle, In Time, Source Code, The Adjustment Bureau, and whatever the fuck Charlie Kaufman does.

You're nostalgic for the '80s? How about remakes of everything that was popular only with big budgets? Plus, we'll keep the old franchises alive with new entries. You like books? We'll do all the Harry Potter, Twilight, Hunger Games... whatever sold over a million copies.

You want original stuff? WE GOT STUFF WE CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN: Drive, Splice, The Fountain, Cloud Atlas, Cabin in the Woods, Abraham Lincoln as a vampire killer, joke trailers turned into action movies, military stroke jobs, martial arts movies with big budgets, cowboys and aliens together, remakes of successful European and Asian movies you didn't watch because you won't watch anything with subtitles.... YOU NAME IT.

ANYTHING and ANYBODY you like, we'll do more of that. And we'll hire directors who know what they're doing, and we'll give them big budgets and total control. You didn't like the Star Wars prequels? We'll pay billions for the franchise and give it to somebody who SEEMS to know what he's doing. WHAT MORE CAN YOU ASK FOR?!

I have my personal doubts about new Star Wars, but everybody seems to be trying make good movies these days, Battleship aside.

Holy crap that is AWESOME!

For those not properly schooled in all things Runyonesque....

It's Dredd, man. He hit one perfecta, and now he's on a gambler's high. He's playing every race and betting on the genre movies.

I hear A Good Day to Die Hard is a mudder, Mike. Could fare well in the wet. Remember your old pal Zarban if she pays out for ya.

/pops a lemon drop

914

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
smile  neutral  sad  big_smile  yikes  wink  hmm  tongue  lol  mad  roll  cool

Just watched Quick Change with Bill Murray (who co-directed) and Geena Davis because I remembered that the beginning was a lot of fun even tho I couldn't remember much else. Turns out there's a reason for that.

The whole rest of the movie is about their attempts to get away with their loot, and thing after thing happens to delay them. The problem with a plot like that is that every scene is just random complication after random complication. And since all they're trying to do is get to the airport, it feels very contrived.

The music is good, Murray and Davis are wonderful. Jason Robards is great as the cop on their case. Randy Quaid isn't completely horrible. There's some character development along the way. And the ending is quite clever. But overall, it just falls short a bit because the plotting is so random.

916

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

They won't do that because Abrams can't do a giant tent-pole movie every year, and Disney won't wait four years for another Star Wars movie.

Enter: Guillermo del Toro.

917

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Well, some of those are obviously not big surprises but a couple of things struck me. One, Americans don't typically speak more than English, so it rarely occurs to us that others do unless they have thick accents. And two, Hollywood very rarely makes use of the fact that many actors speak other languages. How awesome would it be to see Sandra Bullock and Kim Cattrall yelling at each other in German in a movie?

Hudson Hawk (1991) is a fascinating failure. The cast is great, the plotting is spot-on, the music gag is fun, the humor largely works... and then the villains come in out of a cartoon and the thing goes to hell. It's weird because it could work fine as a kids' movie, but they drop the F-bomb all the time, so it's not meant to be a kids' movie. Yet there are moments toward the end that are so ridiculously cartoony and corny that you just want to slap somebody. And it's all physical stuff, so you can't really blame the writers.

I came to think that the screenplay was quite good and that the director, Michael Lehmann, just completely failed on the execution (like Fran Rubel Kuzui messed up Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Lehmann also directed Heathers, Air Heads, and My Giant, which is quite a mixed bag.

Bruce Willis actually came up with the story with music producer Robert Kraft. Then the screenplay was written by Steven de Souza, who wrote the first couple of Die Hard movies, Commando, 48 Hrs, and The Running Man and—after, I guess, some sort of severe head trauma—went on to write The Flintstone, Street Fighter, and Judge Dredd. He was partnered with Daniel Waters, who wrote Heathers, Ford Fairlane, Demolition Man, and Batman Returns. That's a lot of absurdist high wire acts, most of which are corny failures.

The story involves a burglar who gets out of prison and is dragged right back into the criminal life by people who want him to steal Leonardo Da Vinci art pieces. There are secrets within these art pieces, tho, that lead up to a slam-bang climax. Andi McDowell is a pretty art expert, and Danny Aiello is Willis's old pal and partner. The big cast of bad guys includes James Coburn as the head of the worst CIA team ever and Richard E Grant and Sandra Bernhard as insane and ridiculous madmen bent on world domination.

The first half of the film is pretty well done, with good character work between Willis and Aiello and some fun heist shenanigans. It's the second half where the clownish villains ramp up the camp to absurd levels and it stops being fun or funny.

Shame.

919

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

920

(74 replies, posted in Episodes)

Yeah, Coulton more or less concedes that he has no rights here unless he can prove they used his actual recording. His cover is an arrangement of the original, no matter how different it sounds.

The same thing was applied to John Barry regarding the "James Bond Theme". Monty Norman (who basically got fired from Dr. No) gets credit, but it's Barry's arrangement that we all know and love. (This video nicely demonstrates how the melody is Norman's but everything else is Barry's. You can compare Norman's slap-happy jazz arrangement here, called "The James Bond Theme").

Likewise with The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony". Despite getting permission to sample Andrew Oldham's orchestral cover of the Rolling Stones' "The Last Time", they got sued by Allen Klein (the rights holder and one of the most awful people in the music business) for every penny it makes. Legally, "Bittersweet Symphony" IS "The Last Time" and is credited to Jagger/Richards.

Listen to the Stones' original recording of "The Last Time" and then Oldham's version. You can just barely hear the original melody in it. That's how different an arrangement can be. Then listen to "Bittersweet Symphony". It's essentially identical apart from the lyrics.

921

(74 replies, posted in Episodes)

Yeah. Here's how music copyright works (as far as I can tell from my research).

You write a song: your estate owns the copyright to the words and music for 70 years after your death.

You record that song: your estate owns the copyright to that recording for 70 years after your death.

If Teague wants to cover your song, he gets a mechanical license (about $15; he doesn't need your permission; it's compulsory). He owns the copyright to that recording. He gets the profits from sales but must pay you, the songwriter, a standard royalty (about 10¢ per copy distributed).

If, when he's recording his cover, Teague creates a new arrangement of your song (changing rhythm, tempo, melody, backing, lyrics, etc.), YOU OWN IT, not Teague (unless Teague gets you to agree to a special deal).

If Paulou licenses the song from you (for $15) to do a cover, he can do it with Teague's arrangement with no extra compensation or acknowledgement to Teague. Palou owns the copyright on his recording; you still get your songwriting dime.

The only exception is parody. If Paulou's version is mocking you or your song or people who like your song or music in general or society in general, he doesn't need a license or permission and doesn't pay royalties. Weird Al Yankovic DOES pay some royalties to avoid any hard feelings or lawsuits.

Not acknowledging Jonny C was very uncool of Glee, but who ever said Glee was cool?

(Edited for clarity)

922

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

fireproof78 wrote:

several forums that I cruise, like tfn (back in the day) and a Trek fan site, all described the New Trek as a Star Wars film.

Yeah. Attack of the Clones—a bunch characters you recognize doing shit that's damned exciting but that makes no sense, plus a terrible romance.

923

(473 replies, posted in Episodes)

Invoking Star Trek as a point FOR Abrams?

http://www.zarban.com/pics/panicking-now.jpg

924

(33 replies, posted in Episodes)

Perhaps the better way to open the film would be to dramatize the first responders. Forget the 911 calls and overused crash footage. Focus on the people who first responded to the events, then bookend that with Seal Team 6 as the "final responders" if you will.

Maybe somebody on Seal Team 6 even had a firefighter uncle in New York that day. If you're going to make shit up, that would be a better thing to make up than the fantasy that torture produced actionable intelligence.

925

(108 replies, posted in Off Topic)

redxavier wrote:
Zarban wrote:

Do you have any weird body parts? (glass eye, gold prosthetic nose, gimpy hand like Gary Burghoff...)?

My hair is this odd rare colour called auburn?

How long after the argument's done do you usually come up with the ultimate and most eloquent reasoning?

Lame.

/just a placeholder until I can think of the ultimate and most eloquent retort