You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics Mark all as read
Friends In Your Discord!
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!
Search options (Page 9 of 62)
Saniss wrote:Dorkman wrote:And THE WORLD'S END is awful.
I'd really love to read a full review of this. Genuinely interested.
I tried to write one when it came out and I don't even know where to start. It's just so broken and confused. Definitely will need to do a commentary.
It's sad because clearly Edgar Wright and I love the same movies and genres, so I think we'd be buds. But I haven't cared for anything he's made since SHAUN, nor understood why others are so up on them. 
I have not seen RAISING ARIZONA.
And THE WORLD'S END is awful.
Doctor Submarine wrote:Dunno if I have a "thing," per se. I just haven't really liked any of his movies until now. And the Academy's incredible love for him baffles me.
This but the Coen Bros.
/come at me
/O Brother was fine
/True Grit too
/But otherwise
And I'm totally fine with conversation evolving naturally -- it's pretty much the same thing we do on the show, too -- just wanted to make sure we track with the fact that it's a different conversation than the legal conflict in the first post, as I feel like they're being conflated together. (In part because the article conflates them by quoting Christopher Tolkien's artistic dissatisfaction, granted.)
I'm not sure why we're talking about artistic integrity when the article is just about the Tolkien estate getting screwed on the back-end points.
Not to mention that when it comes to staying out of the way artistically, WB is one of the BETTER ones around.
Also, if soul-crushing despair is your thing, you should watch
FireFighter214 wrote:Right, I just don't understand why it happens all the time. If you have a very successful book, and a studio is interested in making it a movie, where are the lawyers screaming in the author's ears pointing out what the studios have done in the past.
You mean those same lawyers who will make a killing litigating a multibillion dollar lawsuit? Sure is a mystery why they wouldn't try to put a stop to it early.
EDIT: Like Trey says, it's all about money. Why do authors do it? Because they stand to make a fuckton of money. The studio makes a movie, makes money, tries to keep as much of the money as it can. The author lawyers up and they spar, and in the end the author settles for a percentage of what he's "owed." Which is still a metric fuckton of money he wouldn't have if he said no.
Sure, let's have more movies like that. I'm totally with you. But trying to turn movies that aren't that into that by tacking on an inappropriate downer ending is just as bad as a downer-built movie tacking on a happy one.
Yeah, as has been pointed out, you can't take a movie about overcoming adversity and never giving up and then in the last ten seconds go "Haha, just kidding, life is bullshit!"
I have not seen all the Bond movies (working on it), so I can't rank them. But as an action movie in its own right, QoS is pretty awful. It's one of the worst of the shake-and-cut-a-lot generation of action films we're getting from non-action directors put at the helm of action movies. I got the impression that Forster set up a lot of cameras to cover the stunts and felt like he needed to use all of them.
Ah, I missed that part of the story. Objections withdrawn.
That is definitely a pre-Twitter aphorism.
I feel like there's a difference between a short film on Vimeo and a major studio release that'll probably rake in more than half a billion dollars, but I recognize that sometimes when you're close to an issue the bullshit mounts until you just decide on a zero bullshit tolerance policy, so I can understand where you're coming from.
Eddie wrote:Yeah. Patton bit the nail on the head. Even if he had credited Clowes, maybe Clowes didn't WANT this adapted. It's not Shia's place to do this without permission. Again, no winners here. Whole thing just sucks.
Eh, from that perspective as a fan film guy I would have been able to see where he was coming from. If he'd credited Clowes and Clowes had balked, I think Shia's "whoops, I was naive and just a big fan" defense would've flown, in the court of public opinion if not actual, y'know, courts. But this is just a trainwreck.
avatar wrote:Does anyone know what these are for? (No, it wasn't a squib or gunfire sequence).
Well those aren't walkie-talkies they're holding.
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.
EDIT: And just to be clear, I don't think Shia is a monster or whatever. But he did wrong and that needs to have consequences of SOME kind so he can't pretend not to know better next time.
I'd be willing to bet the comic artist would've let him do it for free, and happily, if he'd just asked and given credit where due.
Teague wrote:So, is it my fault for not knowing that another piece of pop culture has tackled this perspective before? Is it his fault for "stealing" it? Is it your fault for getting all up in Buzzfeed arms about him ripping off a comic I've never heard any of you talk about before? Or is it just a thing?
Yeah, it's not that he's tackling "the same perspective" as another work. It's that he is LITERALLY using VERBATIM dialogue from someone else's work without giving that someone else the appropriate credit, making some changes here and there, and trying to pass it off as his own. That's plagiarism, straight up, and it's not cool.
Teague wrote:And I've never heard of this thing you guys have apparently all read and memorized.
Neither had I until it was pointed out that Shia plagiarized it. Which he did, flat out. Whether or not you've heard of it before is not relevant.
On Twitter he's trying to pass it off that he just didn't know better. As Trey says, for someone who's been in the business a long time, I don't think that balloon is gonna fly. I think he just thought it was obscure enough that no one would notice.
My roommate and I have been watching all the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET movies. We wanted to do it during October but between life and the Potterthon we've only now managed to get through FREDDY'S DEAD.
As much as I adore a good horror film, I don't think I understand the popularity of horror franchises. I've seen all of the HELLRAISER films, all but one of the SAW films, and now am up to this point with Freddy. Almost all of them start with a promising premise then quickly devolve into nonsense, contradicting their internal mythology multiple times in order to justify continuing the franchise.
I think GRAVITY is a lock for a nomination but will be the dark horse if it wins. My money based solely on buzz would be on 12 YEARS.
Rikkitikkitaavi wrote:I'm eager to see it, but it looks overly complicated, hyper-stylized and convoluted. I guess that's kind of their bag now.
LOL, "now."
They rehabilitated themselves to me with SPEED RACER and CLOUD ATLAS, so I'm down for the ride.
I managed to talk about Harry Potter for 24 hours, but I don't feel like there's enough to say about HOBBIT 1 for three.
I finally got around to NOW YOU SEE ME and I didn't think it was that bad, frankly. Certainly not good, but there were way, way, way worse movies this year.
avatar wrote:You rocked man.
Hooray! Thanks. 
Also, re: one of the topics of conversation I actually remember, a perspective (via Reddit):
EDIT: I've had the HP films ripped to my iPad since we announced this in order to refresh and review and otherwise prepare. Just deleted them all and it felt super weird and sad.
Posts found: 201 to 225 of 1,535
