|
Tender Bender posted:I watched the trailer for Ed Wood after hearing some good things, and it seemed Whimsical Johnny Depp as gently caress. Is it worth it if I'm not a huge Depp fan? Yes. It might be the best work he or Burton has ever put out there. I like Burton but Ed Wood is easily his est film and Depp is fantastic in it. This is before he got lazy. He's not just "being Johnny Depp". He's actually playing a character.
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I watched the trailer for Ed Wood after hearing some good things, and it seemed Whimsical Johnny Depp as gently caress. Is it worth it if I'm not a huge Depp fan? It's not even close to Whimsical Johnny Depp. It's far and away his, and Burton's, best movie, and completely and utterly different in every conceivable way from the poo poo he's been making lately.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
It was made in that era when Tim Burton still injected a heavy dose of black humor to match the visible macabre of his movies. I feel like his recent work overdid the trademark "Burton" visuals, but were pretty empty underneath. Not so for Ed Wood. Like Beetlejuice, it's a pretty sharp comedy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
HKS posted:I just watched Avatar for the first time and it gave me a strong sense of the uncanny valley or whatever they call it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 12:51
|
|
|
For Alien 3 Michael Biehn was able to make the studio pay him the same amount as Aliens for just using footage of him from it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 13:04
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:For Alien 3 Michael Biehn was able to make the studio pay him the same amount as Aliens for just using footage of him from it. You mean a single publicity still right?  This was partly fueled by his anger of not being a part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 14:21
|
|
|
Well the point is that while an actor is still alive you can't use their image in a movie without their permission.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
Trump posted:You mean a single publicity still right? Which was a terrible decision and I am glad he got PAYED.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2011 21:06
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:For Alien 3 Michael Biehn was able to make the studio pay him the same amount as Aliens for just using footage of him from it. So here's a related question: Michael Biehn's entire role was cut from Terminator 2. As seen in the extended scenes version DVDs, he has about 5 minutes of screen time as Sarah Connor's dream, something which is probably not necessary for an already long film. I'm sure an extra or minor actor wouldn't see any real gains from a film they're edited out of, but what happens when a former named "star" gets edited out of a sequel? Did he likely get paid the same as if his scenes were left in?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
IanCaw posted:So here's a related question: Michael Biehn's entire role was cut from Terminator 2. As seen in the extended scenes version DVDs, he has about 5 minutes of screen time as Sarah Connor's dream, something which is probably not necessary for an already long film. I'm sure an extra or minor actor wouldn't see any real gains from a film they're edited out of, but what happens when a former named "star" gets edited out of a sequel? Did he likely get paid the same as if his scenes were left in? As I understand it, as an actor you are paid (either per day or a flat rate, usually depending on the role or your star power) to be filmed. I believe that smaller roles are paid at the end of the week. In your example, Michael Biehn was likely paid to stand in front of a camera and act. The fact that the film was not used in the theatrical release has no bearing in his payment, in this case. Look at it this way. You work in a factory assembling widgits. At the end of the week you are paid for the widgits you assembled, whether or not they sold to the general public.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Look at it this way. You work in a factory assembling widgits. At the end of the week you are paid for the widgits you assembled, whether or not they sold to the general public. Ok, that's logical enough -- now, here's something that is far more nebulous (as I have no idea how SAG works regarding this, or even if this is a SAG thing) -- are there royalty issues for this kind of thing? Would Michael Biehn, say, have seen royalties once the Ultimate or Extreme T2 dvds were out? or are royalty issues mainly for writers and other not-on-camera talent?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
IanCaw posted:Ok, that's logical enough -- now, here's something that is far more nebulous (as I have no idea how SAG works regarding this, or even if this is a SAG thing) -- are there royalty issues for this kind of thing? Would Michael Biehn, say, have seen royalties once the Ultimate or Extreme T2 dvds were out? or are royalty issues mainly for writers and other not-on-camera talent? They're called residuals for actors/writers/directors etc., and SAG members do get them. I don't know how it works if you get cut from the movie though. I'd think they still need to be paid out, unless there is a contract stipulation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
There's a free 1 week trail for hulu plus, and I was wondering if any of the Criterion's they have are in HD. The one preview I looked at was only in 360p and I'd rather just rent the DVD or Blu if it's available, but if they are in higher quality I'd definitely try and work through some of my back log.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
IanCaw posted:Ok, that's logical enough -- now, here's something that is far more nebulous (as I have no idea how SAG works regarding this, or even if this is a SAG thing) -- are there royalty issues for this kind of thing? Would Michael Biehn, say, have seen royalties once the Ultimate or Extreme T2 dvds were out? or are royalty issues mainly for writers and other not-on-camera talent? Well, in this example, I'm going on the assumption that Biehn most likely accepted a contract that excluded him from any residuals. He might have tried bargaining for that, but since he's not a marquee actor, and in 1992 residuals were quite a different creature than they are today, I doubt it was even a thought.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:Interestingly, Crispin Glover sued Robert Zemeckis after they used cut footage of him from BTTF in the sequel even though he didn't want to appear in it, successfully, meaning you can't really do it without the actor's permission probably. It was in fact this very case that caused the Screen Actors Guild to start putting in clauses in the CBAs specifically to prevent producers from doing this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 06:13
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:Interestingly, Crispin Glover sued Robert Zemeckis after they used cut footage of him from BTTF in the sequel even though he didn't want to appear in it, successfully, meaning you can't really do it without the actor's permission probably. Any reason why he didn't want to? Did he hate the first one?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 07:48
|
|
|
Chicolini posted:Any reason why he didn't want to? Did he hate the first one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q7wGsVYydo
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 07:53
|
|
|
Chicolini posted:Any reason why he didn't want to? Did he hate the first one? According to an interview with Zemeckis (I think it's on the recent DVD release somewhere), Crispin Glover was demanding a far larger paycheck for the second film than anyone thought he was worth, so they didn't bring him back for that film.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
oceanside posted:Should I familiarise myself with the man before watching Ed Wood? The imdb plot description for it sounds great, but I don't want to spoil it by not getting any of the references. You also really need to go and watch Plan 9 from Outer Space, ASAP.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2011 23:41
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:According to an interview with Zemeckis (I think it's on the recent DVD release somewhere), Crispin Glover was demanding a far larger paycheck for the second film than anyone thought he was worth, so they didn't bring him back for that film. This is a really interesting story to me, because previously, I always thought that the main people in the first BTTF were just Marty and Doc. When it was re-released in theaters a few months ago I got to see it, and I realized that George is almost as equally a part of the movie, so not having him in the second one really was a mistake. I always thought the second one was really weak, I'd like to see what they could have came up with if they has included Crispin Glover. Although the George McFly character is in it briefly, but I'm guessing there was a few major rewrites to minimize his role.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
There was some thread about bad actors or something and somebody mentioned that they felt that Sharon Stone completely ruined Casino. I don't think it was a problem with her acting, but in the character and whole subplot. It seems to me the whole love story could be completely removed and trim an hour of useless crap to cut the movie down from three hours to a more accessible two hour experience. Did Ginger (Stone) have any bearing at all on the main plot of the movie? I've watched it several times and I don't see how it would have ended any different if Stone's character never existed.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:There was some thread about bad actors or something and somebody mentioned that they felt that Sharon Stone completely ruined Casino. I don't think it was a problem with her acting, but in the character and whole subplot. It seems to me the whole love story could be completely removed and trim an hour of useless crap to cut the movie down from three hours to a more accessible two hour experience. She started loving Joe Pesci and caused a lot of drama there. It's safe to say that the bosses back home probably would have ended up whacking Joe Pesci, Sharon Stone and possibly De Niro if they had ever found out what was going on. There's one point in the movie where Pesci's buddy Frank Marino has to lie to the bosses back home about whether Pesci is loving De Niro's wife and it's pretty clearly stated in a voice-over that everyone involved could have ended up dead if he'd told the truth. The whole point was for De Niro to be the front man and keep things low-profile, after all - having his wife loving someone else is only going to cause trouble.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:There was some thread about bad actors or something and somebody mentioned that they felt that Sharon Stone completely ruined Casino. I don't think it was a problem with her acting, but in the character and whole subplot. It seems to me the whole love story could be completely removed and trim an hour of useless crap to cut the movie down from three hours to a more accessible two hour experience. You can't have a major film without a female character (*). They gotta crowbar it in somewhere, man. (* Exceptions to the rule include prison films and war movies.)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
Hey guys, this is an odd question, but I'm writing and essay about Reality and subjectivity, and I had in the back of my head been thinking about using a movie as an example of something that can make a lot of people go "wow, that's deep. This movie has such a message," while really, I thought to myself "That movie presented it's message really well, and it came off very deep and meaningful. But the message is bullshit, it's really stupid once you think of it." But I CANNOT remember what movie I was thinking about. Basically, I need an example of a movie that's well made and presents a message that's supposed to be deep and inspiring, while it's really a bit stupid once you think about it. e: I'm thinking of using The Pursuit of Happiness, maybe, but I haven't seen it. I'd probably use it because I read that while the movie is touching and inspiring, the real story was quite a bit darker and the oh so great man was bit of a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
csidle posted:Basically, I need an example of a movie that's well made and presents a message that's supposed to be deep and inspiring, while it's really a bit stupid once you think about it. American Beauty.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
penismightier posted:American Beauty. e: I don't mean to come off as "please do my homework," but I just have never put much thought into that movie. I saw it years ago, back when I didn't really put much thought into films. e2: and really, the more flesh for the debate, the better. csidle fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:You can't have a major film without a female character (*). They gotta crowbar it in somewhere, man. This reminds me of Roger Ebert's review of There Will Be Blood. It's an ok review but he said that one of the reasons it wasn't a truly great film was because there are no women characters. csidle posted:
Requiem For a Dream
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
oops!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:16
|
|
|
Requiem for a Dream is about the immediate effect without consideration afterwards, whoa
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
csidle posted:That could do -- would you mind elaborating? American Beauty says is that living in suburbia will sap your soul and crush your spirit, and also that wives are harpies and mean guys are probably gay.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:20
|
|
|
Crash.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
csidle posted:Hey guys, this is an odd question, but I'm writing and essay about Reality and subjectivity, and I had in the back of my head been thinking about using a movie as an example of something that can make a lot of people go "wow, that's deep. This movie has such a message," while really, I thought to myself "That movie presented it's message really well, and it came off very deep and meaningful. But the message is bullshit, it's really stupid once you think of it." But I CANNOT remember what movie I was thinking about. The point of The Pursuit of Happyness to me is sort of that money will solve your problems, even if you have to break up your marriage, getting rich will fix it all. Also, I think Fight Club is the ultimate example of what you are asking for. It has such a strong message about anti-establishmentism but really it's just something stupid where guys want to beat each other up. Rake Arms posted:Crash. Ha, I saw that and I was sure it was trying to tell me something, but in the end I couldn't really figure out what it was. Racism goes both ways, I guess? I'm not really sure. How about American History X. Way to go the whole movie telling us that racism is wrong WHOOPS BLACK KID SHOT THE WHITE KID
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:Also, I think Fight Club is the ultimate example of what you are asking for. It has such a strong message about anti-establishmentism but really it's just something stupid where guys want to beat each other up.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:How about American History X. Way to go the whole movie telling us that racism is wrong WHOOPS BLACK KID SHOT THE WHITE KID I'm not really a huge fan of the movie, but I didn't see the ending as contradicting the rest of its point so much as acknowledging how complicated race relations and racism are.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:Also, I think Fight Club is the ultimate example of what you are asking for. It has such a strong message about anti-establishmentism but really it's just something stupid where guys want to beat each other up. I'm pretty sure you missed the point of Fight Club.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I'm not really a huge fan of the movie, but I didn't see the ending as contradicting the rest of its point so much as acknowledging how complicated race relations and racism are. csidle fucked around with this message at 21:40 on May 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:Also, I think Fight Club is the ultimate example of what you are asking for. It has such a strong message about anti-establishmentism but really it's just something stupid where guys want to beat each other up. I was always under the impression that while Fight Club wanted you to think about establishment and all that goes with it and how maybe you should have a little more energy in your life, the ultimate message was that Norton's crew was really misguided and crazy. E: Kinda beaten. But ya, it's pretty obvious that Fight Club is not an endorsement of Norton and Pitt's ideology.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 21:39
|
|
|
I thought the message of Fight Club was that Tyler Durden was full of poo poo, and the problem was that the movie's target audience (18-25 year old males) took the opposite opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
csidle posted:I thought of it as kind of a The Wire-esque "nothing is black or white" (punintended); that it's essentially an unsolvable problem. I thought it was showing how hate is a machine, and even if parts of it reform, other parts are still turning and there isn't a 1:1 ratio of forgiveness. edit: ^I like to think of fight club as a depiction of how some terrorists may see themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Binowru posted:I thought the message of Fight Club was that Tyler Durden was full of poo poo, and the problem was that the movie's target audience (18-25 year old males) took the opposite opinion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2011 22:37
|
|
