You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Friends In Your Head | Forums → Posts by Trey
Summertime Blues - Eddie Cochran
Folsom Prison Blues - Johhny Cash
Goodtime Charlie's Got The Blues - Danny O'Keefe
Subterranean Homesick Blues - Bob Dylan
The Late John Garfield Blues - John Prine
And now:
Top Five movie titles starting with the word "A" (i.e. "A Goofy Movie", and now you can't use that one.)
We've already started on Die Hard and Terminator and the Star Wars OT and Alien and Gremlins and Jurassic Park and Men In Black... heck, even 2001 has a sequel.
We're swamped!
/Humperdinck
My sister has commented that there are lots of adaptations of Agatha Christie Miss Marple stories but very few actually have Miss Marple in them. The rest just have characters with that name.
Yeah, books are especially prone to that problem. Whether or not an actor will match any given reader's mental picture of a character is a roll of the dice.
Back in the day there was grumbling about Sean Connery being a terrible choice to play James Bond. Fortunately for the filmmakers there was no internet for those people to grumble on yet. Ian Fleming himself thought David Niven was the man for the job - just imagine if he could have blogged about how MGM was ruining his books...
Yeah, imagine the outcry if they made a movie about an American superhero like Batman and the entire cast was British except for Katie Holmes and Morgan Freeman! Oh, wait...
Fine, to be completely accurate the cast of Batman Begins is mostly from the UK... "British" excludes Cillian Murphy and Liam Neeson. But anyway.
It's a tricky thing, adapting a work from another medium into a movie - it's entirely possible to keep all the wrong parts and lose the important ones, we can all cite examples of that.
But I can't see how being blond and British would have made any significant difference to the Constantine character. Maybe it mattered in some way in the comic, but it didn't matter at all to the story the movie was telling.
Besides, it was Keanu's signing on to the movie that got it greenlit, it wouldn't have existed without him. Watching Keanu walk around with bleached hair would have been a major distraction, and his attempt at a British accent in Coppola's Dracula is still being talked about so it was a good call that he didn't try that again.
It is one of those films where those familiar with the comic went, "they cast WHO as the British Constantine?" and just ignored the sucker. It'll be interesting to see if it holds up if you ignore the source material.
The blond British Constantine, from what I understand. In the special features they mention that they discussed dyeing Keanu's hair, and show a wardrobe test of Keanu in the comic-established brown coat, etc. But in the end they decided to leave his hair alone and make his coat non-canon black, because it just looked better on screen that way.
Which in the end, was the right choice - Constantine's hair and accent and jacket color don't make one damn difference to the story, it would have been silly to slavishly stick to trivial details just because that's how it was in the comic. Instead they just made the movie the best way they knew how. For me, it worked.
Aims forced me to watch Constantine last night. I kinda loved it.
That right there? Exactly the sort of thing I was hoping would happen when we covered Constantine. Lots more people should kinda love that movie.
And we haven't even released the commentary yet... awesome!
Never had one lesson...
/Bueller
I wonder, why can't the new digital filmmaking wave be just like those early days of cinema? Someone has an idea for a movie, gets a camera, gets some actors, maybe a tortilla factory, and makes a movie. Then they can put it on youtube for the world to see. Nobody has to give them permission.
All of the above is happening now, yes. But let's say you do all those things - which of course people ARE doing, more and more every day. There's just one missing ingredient: How does the world find out your thing exists?
This is the nut that remains uncracked in the digital self-produced webamajig business: Nobody can guarantee their work of genius will actually find an audience online. Dorkman, Brian and I have all made videos that have racked up millions of online views. But none of us knew - or even dreamed, really - that would happen. Until it did.
None of could have gone to a studio beforehand and said "I am going to make a movie that will become phenomenally popular on the internet, so you should fund it." Or in TV, the money comes from advertisers, and they pay for eyeballs. They won't pay a dime in advance unless you can reasonably guarantee them those eyeballs.
While 20th Century Fox and NBC etc, can't fully guarantee millions of eyeballs either, they have a far better shot at doing it reliably than Dorkman, Brian, and I do. Television stations can tell advertisers that their ads will appear in front of at least X human beings, because they know how many people will be watching their channel no matter what they're showing. And if what they show is actually popular, then the numbers only go up.
So while it's true than virtually anyone can potentially find an audience of millions nowadays, Old Media still has the advantage of being able to do it on a regular basis. And that's still the only way to get decent money to make your project.
Until that nut gets cracked, the internet will continue to have an occasional low-budget breakout hit from among the ten million other bits of video that were released that day. But no one will ever make an Avatar or a Lost or a Dark Knight or an Iron Man or (insert big budget movie or TV show you like) under that system.
You just described almost every project I've ever done. Welcome to showbiz.
Clearly the controversy over the killing of Newt & co will rage forever - just this week Cracked put it at #3 on their list of The Five Worst Deaths Written For Great Characters.
Captain Kirk also makes their list, and I heartily agree with that as well.
Not really, the only reason it exists is for the thread title itself being visible and changed. Socialize that shit.
Well, in that case I will take this opportunity to say that this coming Saturday I'm gonna get to ride on a fire truck.
PS Just watched Avatar for the second time in my life. Liked it, again. I deduct some points for criminal underuse of Michelle Rodriguez, but otherwise a solid effort.
Trey's point about 'why not lock the Alien out & wait for rescue' actually /misses/ the narrative drive he claimed was missing. Ripley's motivation is to destroy the Alien before the Company gets there, coz she knows they won't kill it but weaponise it. That's why she can't just wait it out.
A very good point, that. There is sometimes a downside to doing a commentary for a movie you haven't seen in a while, and that you're not closely watching while commenting upon. 
So my answer is, yeah, you're right. Ripley knows she's doomed so her goal isn't survival this time, it's to stop the Company from getting what it wants. Sold.
And again, if Alien 3 was just a movie and not the third ALIEN movie, I would probably have loved it when I saw it the first time. It's just that at the time the tonal shift from the second movie was just too abrupt to swallow.
I think I said it best in the commentary by drawing the analogy to original Star Wars, as if the first two movies were the same and then Return of the Jedi started with Han and Luke talking about Leia's funeral. On the other hand, one of the few things that the SW prequels got right was that they set out to tell a tragic tale right from the very beginning, and spent all three movies telling THAT tale, rather than two movies of adventure that suddenly turned tragic in the third movie. (Whether that tale was worth telling, or was told competently, well... those are different issues.)
Someone mentioned the body count in the final Harry Potter novel, and my response to that is that the Potter books all have a dark undercurrent to them, and always hinted that the final showdown with Voldemort was unavoidable. It was repeatedly underscored that while Harry and co. might win a skirmish here and there, they were just postponing the inevitable. So it wasn't a surprise when things got bad, the only question was exactly how bad was it gonna get?
So again, artistically I got no problem with telling a sad story, and over time I've come to admire Alien 3 in its own right, but I still think it was an unwelcome departure from the direction the series had been headed before then.
Oh come on. I can't possibly be the only one who genuinely liked the movie, can I?
No, I liked it fine too. Not the greatest movie ever made, but hardly the worst. I saw it once, I felt I got my money's worth and haven't given it much thought since.
But *Spoiler alert* I wasn't present at the upcoming commentary, so I have no idea what the panel's take on it will be. This'll be a good excuse for me to see the movie a second time.
I live in an abandoned NORAD bunker surrounded by partially decommissioned nuclear warheads that leak glowing green fluid. Most of my body parts have been replaced with steel and silicon, and my few remaining biological components are kept in a state of permanent vigor via regular doses of blood plasma distilled from the corpses of the hapless fools who come seeking the source of my decoy radio beacon that broadcasts an automated message of false hope.
Oh, sorry - I meant to post this in the Introduce Yourself thread.
Of course, you'd have more of a leg to stand on if you had ever really bothered to listen to any of the shows the old lady listened to. Or actually watched her drive more than once for part of her commute all those years.
Sit yourself down, buddy.
Fun fact, I have seen the "there are four lights" episode. I have seen "Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra" and a few others too, and... brace yourself... they were pretty good.
My disinterest in Next Generation isn't about the ratio of good/bad episodes. That wouldn't be much of an argument since - let's be honest - Original Trek had more bad episodes than good. No, my disinterest in TNG is far more fundamental.
I was a massive fan of Original Star Wars too, but I never once thought, "I sure hope they make three more of these movies about Jedi!" . There could not have been a bigger Star Wars fan on the planet in 1977 than me, and never once did I want to know more about Jedi. Because the original trilogy wasn't about Jedi. And yet somehow... the prequels are only about Jedi. Well, bummer - I was hoping for more Star Wars, not whatever the heck that was.
In the same way, I liked Star Trek, the adventure serial about roaming the galaxy and getting into trouble and getting out of it again. They supposedly came from a utopian society of some kind, but we never saw it - the show itself took place out on the frontier, 'cause that's where y'know... stuff happens.
Once in a while they'd sneak a little bit of social commentary in there, which was cool (tho some episodes went too far and became Very Important Statements About Racism or whatever).
It was also nice that they made some attempt to be consistent with their made-up technology of warp engines and transporters and shields and such. But they didn't dwell on it much.
I admired Roddenberry then - and still do - for sneaking in those little hints of spice while doing his primary job of Entertaining The Masses by any means necessary.
They didn't always get there, sometimes all they really had was the William Theiss Wardrobe Suspense Technique - "I swear to god, that chick is gonna fall out of that costume any second". Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But when it worked, it really worked - because they were making an entertainment that was sneakily About Something and at the same time Not Entirely Stupid. As we've said on DIF many times, even the pulpiest entertainment can still be smart, and about something.
TNG set out to be About Something, and that's the problem. If Star Trek was a slice of toast with a hint of cinnamon, TNG was a bowl of cinnamon powder with breadcrumbs in it.
And you know I'm not just pulling that outa my ass. That TNG writer's bible didn't fall from the sky, I hung out with people who wrote for and were otherwise involved in the show then, and now. Get a drink in them and they will tell you about how hard it was to write anything under the Roddenberry-imposed burden of Star Trek Is A Deeply Meaningful Lesson About My Vision Of The Future And Will Be My Legacy Forever.
And I think it shows. Even if some good episodes escaped that black hole, let's be real - if I flip the channel and catch an episode of TNG in progress, odds are I'm gonna be looking at a bunch of people sitting in those comfy bridge chairs talkin' either techno-nonsense or Important Issues.
But if you found it entertaining, that's okay by me. It really is. And I'm sure there are good episodes of TNG that I still haven't seen - tho I'll betcha they're the ones with less talking. But I don't feel particularly motivated to see them.
Next Gen taught me that Star Trek didn't owe me anything, but that I didn't owe it anything either. I've seen a few episodes of all the other incarnations since then, and they ran the same gamut from meh to hmm. Turns out you can be a fan of Star Trek and not give a shit about it at the same time.
And that's a blessing, otherwise I'd be pretty upset about some of the things they've done to it over the years.
So you don't get to play that "you're picking on me because I'm a Star Trek nerd " card around me, newbie. My copies of The Star Trek Concordance and The World of Star Trek are older than you are, and heavily worn from re-reading. Not so much lately, but back in the day? Chapter and verse, son.
And you can't honestly claim you're being persecuted for nerddom here in this forum where, as Dorkman pointed out, ain't nobody here BUT nerds of some kind or other. For example, Dorkman's screen name IS DORKMAN.
No, I only object - and I do believe every post I've made illustrates this - to your insistence that Abrams didn't get Star Trek "right" somehow, or that he didn't follow what Star Trek is "supposed to be about". Every time you say that Trek is this or that, I'm here to say, no it isn't, not necessarily, not always. That's just what you think it is.
But I feel your pain. I felt it twenty years ago, when - in my opinion - Next Gen got everything wrong.
Don't you see, son? I'm not here to mock your love of Trek, I am a time traveler from the past, come to tell you that I love it too, but you can't say with absolute authority what Trek "is" and neither can I.
For you, she was a bookish schoolmarm who opened your eyes to the universe and on whom you had your first crush, and now you've caught her behind a dumpster with JJ Abrams riding her like a three-dollar whore. And all your friends are there applauding.
Oh sure, you can tell yourself that isn't really her... but it is. Looks like she's learned a thing or two since I knew her, damn.
I'm only here to say, let it go. Star Trek doesn't come from any particular book or movie or TV show, the real Trek lives in your HEART, man. And there it will be anything you want it to be.
It'll also show up drunk on your doorstep in a couple years and try to act like nothing happened. It'll be your move at that point.
Now's one of those times when I feel compelled to remind everyone that I really, deeply like the film despite its jaw-droppingly hideous flaws.
And that's my opinion as well.
Brian will never understand this - that's okay, there are many things Brian will never understand - but for me, see...when I was a kid we had this nifty sportscar...
Sure, the backseat was too small and it got terrible mileage and didn't even have an iPod dock. But once a week we'd all get in and take it for a spin, just 'cause it was fun.
Then somebody's grandmother got hold of it and every Sunday for thirty years she carefully drove it to church at five miles below the speed limit while listening to important social issues being discussed on talk radio. I'd see it go by sometimes and think, well okay, if that's what you want to do with it, but I ain't getting in.
But then she sold it to that Abrams kid, and while I'm not wild about that new paint job he put on it, at least he ain't afraid to mash that accelerator.
Turns out that thing can still haul ASS.
And that's good enough for me.
Well, that does make more sense. I must have misheard that bit.
I still like the idea that he stole mom's boyfriend's car, tho...
BTW, I do have to admit that I learned something new from this episode of DIF... I knew Kirk had a brother Sam who died on an outpost planet, because there's a whole original series episode about that. But I sure never knew that was supposed to be Sam's car that Kid Kirk dropped off that cliff.
I thought the car - and the voice on the phone - belonged to Kirk's mom's new husband or boyfriend. Which I liked, because that REALLY made Kirk a bad kid. Stealing his brother's car doesn't seem like nearly as big a deal.
So how are we supposed to know that's his brother? Does he call him Sam? Are we sure it's Brother Sam? And how does Kirk's brother afford an antique car like that, did he invent Slusho or what?
Brian, you started this game of "it's wrong because that's not how we would do things" so I submit that we already build and launch space vehicles as far away from population centers as we can get them, for a variety of good reasons.
There were plenty of things in Star Trek that I didn't buy, but a starship being assembled in the boonies actually DID make sense to me for a change. Building it in the Middle of Nowhere, Iowa seems like a far better idea than San Francisco.
True, IN FRICKIN SPACE would have made even more sense, but whatever.
You're not the first person to suggest Preacher is worth a look, if I ever get 'round to sampling a comic then Preacher is very high up on a very short list.
Actually, now that I think about it there was somekinda Firefly comic on the coffee table at Teague's place last time I was over there, I read the whole thing while waiting for showtime. So that makes three comics I've read.
On Tolkien's part as well as Jackson, though I could be mistaken, but doesn't Tolkien justify it in some way?
Sort of. It's never specifically explained in either the book or the movie, but the answer that makes sense to me is: The eagles could cruise to Mordor any old time... once Sauron was dead and his armies of archers and Fell Beasts weren't swarming all over the place.
For what it's worth, that's Filippa Boyens' answer in the movie commentary: Sauron had an air force too, duh. I figure she's given more thought to the plot than I have, so I'm good with it.
There's also some implication that the eagles only got involved when it suited their own unknown agenda to do it. Earlier, when Gandalf sends out his moth-message seeking help to escape Saruman's tower, he seems genuinely surprised when an eagle shows up.
So even before hearing Boyens' justification, I just figgered it wasn't a guarantee that the eagles were at Gandalf's beck and call. Maybe if you're lucky they'll help you, but more likely you're gonna be totin' that package to Mordor yourself, pal. I'm an eagle, not a goddam OWL, so piss off.
Oh, you killed Sauron? All right, I guess we can make one run for you. ONE.
Anyway. What was that about pie?
EDIT: Something else occured to me after first posting this: it isn't all that shocking that they can't just order the eagles around - in Middle Earth you can get in heaps of trouble if you piss off the TREES.
If I levitate because I just got punched in the face in slow motion, it's a Hong Kong kung fu film...
*Claps hands*
Okay people, we're all done here, Jeffery wins the thread. Move along.
I've been pushing for Constantine since the day we started DIF, I love that movie lots and lots, and I care naught that it was based on a comic I've never read. (When it comes to comics, unless it's Watchmen or The Rocketeer, I have not read it.)
Which might be why I can love Constantine so much, apparently the movie disappointed some fans of the comic. I feel fortunate not to have that problem. It was a movie about which I had no expectations at all, and it rocked my face like a sheep in a... thing that rocks a sheep's face. You know what I mean.
And Unforgiven? Oh man, I would loves me some Unforgiven, too. Yes, please. What comic was that based on, anyway?
I do believe it was the theatrical, as I recall we remarked that there was a rather different director's cut, but only because we weren't watching it.
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.
