926

(24 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Hell to the no.

Harry isn't like James Bond or Indiana Jones. He wasn't created to have thrilling but essentially unrelated adventures for as long as the author can come up with something. The Potter novels are one story about Harry's lifelong (at least until the age of 17) epic struggle with the incarnation of Ultimate Evil. It's not wizard of the week episodic stuff. You could do more stories with him like that, but the real story's been told, and anything else would feel feeble and desperate.

It's like we say on the show, a movie should ideally be about the most interesting thing that ever happened to those characters. I loved LOTR, but I'm not interested in a new movie about Sam's tenure as mayor of Hobbiton in the years that followed. There is no amount of thwarted turnip thieving that makes that as worth telling as the time he helped save the world from Sauron.

EDIT: it's also why I've never wanted to see a fourth BACK TO THE FUTURE. In the end, the trilogy is a single story (which, if we're honest, goes to the frontier-town mansion in the third act). The story was all wrapped up in the end. Another film would feel like the odd man out.

927

(56 replies, posted in Episodes)

I have no idea what you just said.

928

(56 replies, posted in Episodes)

But why use the word "God" when you don't mean anything like what "God" is understood to mean when everyone else uses it? It's like me saying I just bought a car when I really mean a sandwich. The entire point of language is that words have agreed-upon meanings as shorthand for concepts. Instead of describing the attributes of a tree, I can say "tree" and you automatically picture something at least in the neighborhood of what I mean, though the specifics may vary ("tree" may invoke an oak for you, a pine for someone else; "God" may invoke Yahweh for you, Vishnu for someone else).

If you're going to use a word to mean something entirely unlike what everyone else means when they use the word, it defeats the purpose of using the word at all and renders it literally meaningless. 

I certainly believe -- hell, I'd even venture to say I know -- that there's stuff out there in the universe that is entirely unlike anything else in our experience, and probably lots beyond our comprehension, and probably stuff we maybe will never even know is out there because of the limits of our perception. But I'm not going to call any of that "God," because "God" is a set of concepts and attributes. How can I simultaneously claim there's something out there we know nothing about while claiming to know enough about it to give it a label, especially one so loaded?

929

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

Oh my god, I just imagined that and you're right. That's exactly what would happen if Star Wars were made today. They'd have the conversation about the Falcon being a super-fast ship, then they'd get to Alderaan before it blew up and be like "Bye Han, thanks for the ride!" and he'd be out of the movie.

EDIT: Or, we see him one more time being interrogated by the Empire, and he's the one who tells them Luke and Obi Wan are on Alderaan, which is why the Empire goes after Alderaan. Then they kill him even though they said they wouldn't and he's all surprised because they had a deal.

930

(47 replies, posted in Episodes)

The two parallel lines on the left side wall being indicated as at a right angle to each other breaks my brain.

931

(21 replies, posted in Episodes)

I think my favorite bit in EMBER, which I didn't mention here, is that they have this whole complicated plan written in plain English on unlaminated paper, and bits of it get lost or damaged or whatever, and then at last when they make it out of the city, there's a box of matches, and they have instructions in pictograms. Like the Builders thought the ride down the river would render everyone illiterate somehow.

I don't know why this is making the rounds today as a big bombshell. Spielberg has openly hated the aliens aspect in every interview since before they even shot the thing. It's why it took almost 20 years to make the film -- Lucas said it was aliens or nothing, so Spielberg said it would be nothing. Until, for some reason, he gave in.

The actual, stunning news here is that Spielberg is responsible for the fridge.

933

(4 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Meh. It's not like studios and rental houses are buying new cams all the time, the existing cameras -- assuming repairs and maintenance will be continued -- will continue to be viable for decades. There are probably cams from the 70s and 80s still going out on sets and getting the job done.

When Kodak and Fuji stop making celluloid, THAT'S the fat lady hitting high-C. And that'll come, but it'll be a while yet.

You've posted this in the wrong thread; therefore Kubrick is a genius.

935

(30 replies, posted in Episodes)

Go for it, switch. I wasn't planning to write it.

936

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

I saw DREAMCATCHER in a free sneak peek at college and the whole crowd was in hysterics. It was free, so no one felt ripped off, and we were in college, so we were going to waste that time anyway, so we all just sat back and became enraptured by the glorious, raving absurdity.

Believe it or not, it's actually an improvement on the source material. Goldman and Kasdan, pros that they are, managed to wrestle the book into a relatively satisfying cinematic structure with a clear beginning, middle, and end (including changing the ending completely).

But they're starting from what is easily one of King's most lunatic novels -- immediately post-accident he was pretty well off the reservation. They're trying to be faithful to the material for some reason, and there's only so far you can make it work with a straight face when the canonical term for the monsters in your story is "shit-weasels."

Imagine how disastrous it would have been without the high pedigree it has, if you dare.

937

(30 replies, posted in Episodes)

Zarban wrote:

You could remake Casablanca today for $1 million plus cast salaries. AND HAVE DINOSAURS.

TERRA BLANCA -- the story of the man who runs the bar at a time traveling refugee camp, and what he does when the former love of his life comes through the time portal. "Of all the epochs in all the world..."

...actually I would totally watch that.

938

(27 replies, posted in Off Topic)

redxavier wrote:

It's like trying to argue that Darth Vader is the main character of Star Wars OT and not Luke.

Which of course is exactly what George has been doing since 2005.

http://www.georgelucas1.com/pictures_pics_photos_images/george_lucas_11.jpg

939

(27 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, I was trying to find a nicer way of saying "If you think the characters are undeveloped, you probably weren't paying attention."

940

(44 replies, posted in Episodes)

Confused Matthew thinks CRYSTAL SKULL is a good movie. His argument is invalid.

941

(27 replies, posted in Off Topic)

DRIVE is awesome. What it isn't is a movie that's going to explain itself for the cheap seats. It's being sold as an action movie, but it's the kind of movie that would be considered actiony in the 60s, not today. It's more of a thriller and a drama, and the characters are plenty developed, but the movie doesn't tell you about them by having them speak. If you're not willing to do some legwork and engage with the movie rather than sit back and have the movie explain itself to you, then DRIVE is the wrong movie for you.

942

(47 replies, posted in Episodes)

I'm more inclined to think that he did that because if they were in a real location, the hotel lights would be tungsten and the light coming in from the windows would be daylight, so he had the lights in the hotel area be tungsten and the lights coming in from the windows be daylight so that it felt like moving through a real location and not a set.

I'll go so far as to grant that this could very well have been a deliberate choice to make the movie more creepy in the sense that making the hotel feel like a real place in the real world makes the horror more relatable and more effective. But I'm not willing to go so far as to think there's some "using the subliminal discomfort of non-complementary color palattes" senior thesis type justification behind it. That tastes like Kool-Aid to me.

943

(47 replies, posted in Episodes)

Yeah, doing the show made me want to re-read the novel and I felt like an asshole when I got there and realized I'd misremembered.

The hedge animals, by the way, could totally work cinematically and be terrifying if they were done like in the novel, where they don't move when you're looking and the camera keeps cutting back to them in different, ever approaching positions. Unfortunately, as I recall, the miniseries went the route of "They don't move when the characters are looking, but the camera doesn't count," so you get shots of CG hedge lions stalking around when the characters' backs are turned.

(As I recall. We've just established that I fuck that up sometimes, so I guess check it out for yourself if you can find it.)

944

(10 replies, posted in Creations)

Just about every podcast I listen to these days has a Skype component. The FXGuide/phd/RedCentre guys are all over the world and interview people spread about likewise, The Skeptics Gude to the Universe is all done over Skype... There was a time when Skype was ganky and unreliable, but that was years ago.

That being said, we can barely manage to keep any given episode from imploding technologically with everyone present in one room, so I can understand the reticence toward trying to add a remote contributor to DIF. But maybe we could experiment for the Intermission.

945

(1,019 replies, posted in Episodes)

fireproof78 wrote:

*runs from the flames*

Let's all think about this for a moment.

946

(2,061 replies, posted in Episodes)

KUNG FU HUSTLE is one of my absolute favorite films. (I know I say that about a lot of movies. I have a lot of favorites. But I loathe a lot of movies, too, so the net energy of the universe remains zero.) But I don't expect we'll do a DIF of it. I think it might be a wee bit esoteric.

redxavier wrote:

I wouldn't quite agree with the idea that the first draft should come before you start thinking about the important stuff such as character spines, why you're telling the story and its themes - though I might have misunderstood this part - since the first draft might end up being something that you can't really use at all.

I missed responding to this after that other...stuff...happened.

The thing is, you have to work that stuff out somewhere. Trying to do it in my head doesn't work for me. Or, it does, but it doesn't get me as far or as fast as hashing it out on the page. The characters don't start talking and making decisions when I'm brainstorming, it's only once I've got them talking to each other that things come to life. So I try to get things on the page as quick as I can. Sure, I could write notes, but if I'm going to write something it might as well be script pages.

If you write the first draft mostly off-the-cuff, I can practically guarantee there will be plenty that you can use. You'll discover your main character isn't interesting and a side character is; or that your drama is actually a dark comedy, your comedy a tragedy; or your theme isn't what you thought it was; and you'll have some great scenes or lines or even just characters amid the dreck, which you can airlift away into the rewrite. And if you truly can't use a single word or aspect of the first draft, it's no different than if you hadn't written anything at all in that time. At worst you break even, at best you've made progress. It's like a Pascal's Wager that makes sense.

I've got the same view of writing, somewhat, that Stephen King does (or did last I checked) -- it's like an excavation, the story is already there, I'm just discovering it and trying not to break it as I dig it out.

If a story excites and interests me, I don't ask why -- not to start with. Obviously there's a reason, it speaks to me on some level; but if I'm not conscious of it at the outset what's more important, to me, is to get out of my own way and start telling the story. Why it interests me will start to become evident as I go along, and as I discover that this avenue doesn't feel right, and that one does. First draft is largely intuitive for me, mostly id.

After that I let the ego back in and I do some introspection, trying to suss out why it interested me, why it felt right to do things a certain way, and once I sort that out I can develop it intellectually (and, ideally, intelligently). This is where the outlining and the notes and worldbuilding really take place -- or rather where I make sure everything makes consistent sense and go from there.

Sometimes it doesn't take the whole first draft. I've been writing a new script for a few weeks just because something about it was exciting to me, and tonight I wrote a bit that made me go "Oh, THAT'S what I'm doing here." But if I hadn't started writing as soon as I got the idea (which I'm far too guilty of not doing with most ideas) I still don't think I'd know.

Don't let the door hit you, princess.

Anyway, actually on the topic, an addendum I wanted to make in the following ep but didn't get around to is that when I say it's a big no-no to give your script to someone if you know it has problems, I mean to say that if you're giving it to someone and you know it has problems that you could fix, and have just chosen not to before giving it to them, that's lazy and shitty and you ought to be caned in the street.

On the other hand, if you know the script has problems and you can't figure out how to fix them, and the point of giving it to that person is to get a new perspective and maybe some new ideas for solutions, then of course that's perfectly valid and a great reason to seek a second pair of eyes.

maul2 wrote:

No, but we are you audience, and like it or not without us you are nothing

Get over yourself. You don't speak for our audience, you speak for you. When we start charging and you start paying, you can start playing the "you need me" card. Until then this kind of statement makes you sound ridiculous.

Your "suggestions" come off as demands because you're couching them in aggressive, accusatory language and ludicrous statements like "without us you are nothing." So what if we don't touch on the topics YOU want to hear? It's a free podcast. We're making the show WE want to make. Our audience is the people who want to listen to it. Simple as that. If that doesn't include you, then so be it.

Here's how it is. We've decided to offer a 30-minute, non-film-specific podcast in addition to the film-specific commentary podcast we've been doing for three years now. Being non-specific, the topic is open to suggestion and considering we've only recorded five of them so far I think it's a little premature to start bemoaning some "tendency" for suggestions to go ignored. Give the thing a chance first.

I don't re-listen to the commentaries I'm on very often, personally, so if there's a topic in there that we moved on from and forgot about, we forgot about it. Feel free to remind us and suggest we cover it in an Intermission. That's part of what the show is here for. We're inviting topic ideas. And we're inviting continued conversation here in the forum.

What we're not inviting is demands that we spend even more of our time doing longer shows (a DIF session runs about 6 hours as it is), or that we discuss a topic this way instead of that way. If you don't like the format, if you don't like the topics, if you think that no conversation at all would be better than a 30 minute hard-out, then don't listen to the new show. We want to entertain, but we're not your dancing monkeys.