|
One I'll always remember for some reason is from Con Air. The trailer had a scene where Nic Cage walks across the back of a bad guy stretched between two speeding trucks.
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Toebone posted:One I'll always remember for some reason is from Con Air. The trailer had a scene where Nic Cage walks across the back of a bad guy stretched between two speeding trucks. When you realize stuff like was shot and then cut from the final film, it really makes you wonder just what the hell is missing and how it would have changed everything. Some cuts are minor but some cuts are very drastic, erasing whole subplots from a film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
What exactly constitutes a Revisionist Western? Wherever I see the term used, it's in relation to movies I've seen and quite liked, like Unforgiven or High Noon, but the term itself doesn't mean anything to me. I guess I haven't seen enough non-revisionist Westerns to understand the classification.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:What exactly constitutes a Revisionist Western? Wherever I see the term used, it's in relation to movies I've seen and quite liked, like Unforgiven or High Noon, but the term itself doesn't mean anything to me. I guess I haven't seen enough non-revisionist Westerns to understand the classification. It's basically a western that's not literally "guy rides up on a horse, shoots a bunch of Indians, rescues the girl and rides off into the sunset". The more realistic or cynical types of westerns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's basically a western that's not literally "guy rides up on a horse, shoots a bunch of Indians, rescues the girl and rides off into the sunset". The more realistic or cynical types of westerns. Yeah, close enough. It's a fuzzy term because there was already a lot of subversive elements going on even in the Classical period (Johnny Guitar flouts some conventions but it isn't generally considered a revisionist Western, although one could argue that Broken Arrow from the 50's IS revisionist), so it's important to remember that it's both a genre and kind of a specific movement as well, so it's tied to a time period. The Revisionist Western does tend to be more cynical and particularly emphasizes that that era sucked and has a larger focus on minority groups than more classical westerns tended to, and you start seeing this pop up in the mid 60's and continuing since then, but it's been getting more and more ill-defined as it goes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:The missing footage from a trailer that I remember most clearly would be from Twister. IIRC, it's a POV shot from inside a truck, and as it's driving down the road, a big farm tractor is picked up and tossed into the truck by the storm. This was pretty infamous because it was a money shot that made everyone go "whoa" in the theater but wasn't in the movie itself. In fact it caused some controversy (as far as silly things such as this can be 'controversial') when the press found out the shot was never meant for the film at all but was in fact made specifically for the trailer. I remember reading a short TV Guide piece about it at the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:What exactly constitutes a Revisionist Western? Wherever I see the term used, it's in relation to movies I've seen and quite liked, like Unforgiven or High Noon, but the term itself doesn't mean anything to me. I guess I haven't seen enough non-revisionist Westerns to understand the classification. In Westerns this is, as others have commented, generally a reaction to the studio-era Western, exemplified by the mid-career John Ford. It's easy to think of a lot of the obvious elements---moral simplicity, patriotic nationalism, belief in the inherent strength and righteousness of communities, and so on---but there are also all the archetypes (team-player maverick, eastern intellectual, drunken doctor, whore with a heart of gold, and so on), the hallmarks of setting (canonically the Monument Valley, but more generally a wilderness that is tough, but also full of opportunity), and the framing of action (e.g. violence being a thing which is generally to be deplored but can be employed by hard-handed righteous men to expunge villainy from the community with almost surgical cleanliness). When you look at, for example, the Sergio Leone Westerns, you can see the systematic subversion of all of these conventions---the `heroes' are largely amoral; the violence is random, brutal, and messy; the landscape is a blasted hellscape; and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
SubG posted:`Revisionism' in general refers to any work that nominally participates in a genre or movement which is popular enough to have an institutionalised aesthetic (in terms of presentation or in content), but which rejects or re-interprets that aesthetic enough to have its own recognisable sensibilities. Ford also made an amazing one - The Searchers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 21:34
|
|
SubG posted:`Revisionism' in general refers to any work that nominally participates in a genre or movement which is popular enough to have an institutionalised aesthetic (in terms of presentation or in content), but which rejects or re-interprets that aesthetic enough to have its own recognisable sensibilities. This is pretty funny because Deadwood has almost all of those archetypes.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Blast of Confetti posted:Why do trailers sometimes have a line/scene not in the release of the movie? Indiana Jones Crystal Skull's "Part time" one liner was entirely different in the trailer and I just saw a review for Ted that talks about how a certain line was in the trailer but not the movie. I read somewhere that someone sued Paramount over Jack Reacher because there is a scene in the trailer that's not in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Why has The Lone Ranger bombed? It took a critical pasting, but so did Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean. The trailers and marketing all scream "blockbuster hit!!" to me; it's not like it looks like they hosed it up from an expensive, polished, mass-market summer blockbuster perspective. It doesn't look weird or difficult or niche. What went wrong?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Slasherfan posted:I read somewhere that someone sued Paramount over Jack Reacher because there is a scene in the trailer that's not in the movie. Instead they should have sued because Jack Reacher was SO BORING. I was amused that the villain was a FOREIGNER who's big scheme was he would take TAXPAYER MONEY to build PUBLIC WORKS that we didn't need. GET SHOT IN THE FACE, FOREIGN COMMIE LEECH! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Ford also made an amazing one - The Searchers. I really wouldn't call The Searchers one of my favourite John Ford films (although it's one of his most beautiful---and the blu ray looks fantastic and is dirt cheap if anyone out there hasn't seen it), but it's certainly one of the most essential texts in Hollywood cinema. Ho Chi Mint posted:This is pretty funny because Deadwood has almost all of those archetypes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:What exactly constitutes a Revisionist Western? Wherever I see the term used, it's in relation to movies I've seen and quite liked, like Unforgiven or High Noon, but the term itself doesn't mean anything to me. I guess I haven't seen enough non-revisionist Westerns to understand the classification. This has already been answered, but I saw a ton of new posts in the Red Dead Redemption thread and noticed that you're playing the game. Pay close attention to the third act of the game when you get there. It's a tribute to the revisionist western genre. Popcorn posted:Why has The Lone Ranger bombed? Westerns generally don't produce blockbuster grosses, at least in recent years. I think the problem is everything you pointed out. It looked too polished and too much like a blockbuster. The whole thing just looked like a thinly veiled attempt to create a franchise, and I think it rubbed people the wrong way. The trailers and commercials didn't really hint what the movie was about. It just relied too heavily on Johnny Depp being weird, and that's not producing the results that it was a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:and I think it rubbed people the wrong way. This is probably a really big factor, I know a bunch of people who saw it and they all hated it and thought it was weird and boring. If I had to guess, a major factor in Lone Ranger's failure was negative word-of-mouth. It just kinda turned people off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies, everyone. Very helpful.CopywrightMMXI posted:This has already been answered, but I saw a ton of new posts in the Red Dead Redemption thread and noticed that you're playing the game. Pay close attention to the third act of the game when you get there. It's a tribute to the revisionist western genre. I've actually played it before and am going through it another time. It's one of the things that helped me get into westerns in the first place.  Do you mean hunting down Dutch or the stuff on the ranch, or both?
Alfred P. Pseudonym fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Why has The Lone Ranger bombed? This summer has been jammed to the hilt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Thanks for the replies, everyone. Very helpful. Pretty much everything about the third act is, including the stuff you mentioned. The blurred lines of morality are present throughout the game, but really come to a head throughout the third act. Also, keep in mind at this point in the game we meet our first Native character. The coked up professor keeps on treating him like a savage, but the Native character (I can't remember his name) is obviously much more intelligent and insightful. The humanization of natives is a huge part of revisionist westerns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
quote:Westerns generally don't produce blockbuster grosses, at least in recent years. But remember how that was the case with pirate movies before Pirates of the Caribbean, too? They're not blockbusters, but I would have thought the commercial success of True Grit and Django indicated a market that might be receptive to the western. I guess Wild Wild West did badly but that was years ago. I'm really interested in how the same market that laps up Transformers and the latter PoTC movies snubbed this. The idea that they responded to a perceived cynicism fascinates me. I'd also like to know what it is about Lone Ranger that might have created negative word of mouth that Transformers (a franchise I never hear anyone speak positively about, even among non-nerds) didn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:But remember how that was the case with pirate movies before Pirates of the Caribbean, too? While True Grit and Django were certainly successful, they weren't the type of movies that brought in hundreds of millions of dollars. The Lone Ranger may just be the first signs of blockbuster fatigue that Spielberg and Lucas have predicted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:While True Grit and Django were certainly successful, they weren't the type of movies that brought in hundreds of millions of dollars. Django made $323 million at the box office. True Grit made $213 million. I know what you mean though. Transformers 3 made a billion alone. Popcorn fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:
No, it's because it's a (relatively) untested property which was poorly made. To go back to Transformers, while it wasn't a great movie it was an entertaining and well paced movie. The feeling I've gotten from Disney since Pirates 3 is that they can't really get the good first entry to warrant more sequels like the original Pirates of the Caribbean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I think the problem with the Lone Ranger is that they vastly, vastly underestimated their audience. The trailers just made it seem like a lousy attempt to recreate the Pirates franchise's aesthetic (despite those movies having already burned people out on Johnny Depp being whacky, I know I nearly walked out when there were three or four Jack Sparrows running around on screen in the third one). It had a weird mixture of pandering to its audience while sneering at them which I think the audience picked up on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Ford also made an amazing one - The Searchers. I liked Searchers up til the ending. It should've had the kid shoot Wayne.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:I'm really interested in how the same market that laps up Transformers and the latter PoTC movies snubbed this. The idea that they responded to a perceived cynicism fascinates me. I'd also like to know what it is about Lone Ranger that might have created negative word of mouth that Transformers (a franchise I never hear anyone speak positively about, even among non-nerds) didn't. I think part of it is that nobody gives a poo poo about the franchise of the Lone Ranger or about Armie Hammer as a lead. Transformers had a huge childhood BUT BADASS AND MODERN nostalgia thing as well as Shia LaBeouf being at least recognizable. Pirates had Orlando Bloom hot off the LotR movies and Keira Knightley being a bit of a name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
effectual posted:I liked Searchers up til the ending. It should've had the kid shoot Wayne.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
Baron von Eevl posted:I think part of it is that nobody gives a poo poo about the franchise of the Lone Ranger or about Armie Hammer as a lead. Transformers had a huge childhood BUT BADASS AND MODERN nostalgia thing as well as Shia LaBeouf being at least recognizable. Pirates had Orlando Bloom hot off the LotR movies and Keira Knightley being a bit of a name. Transformers also had Michael Bay, an enormously successful director with his finger on the pulse of the public consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
I thought Pale Rider should go in the western subversion category. Also to a (much) lesser degree, Posse and the Sharon Stone version of the Quick and the Dead. And Gene Hackman related, every list of acceptable westerns must include the aforementioned Unforgiven. Alas that I can not say the same for Tombstone because as awesome as it was, it is also bog-standard old school hero rides a white horse &c. Protagonists are (reasonably) good and the antagonists are rapier than Clint in Pale Rider. Every actor's performance in that was pitch perfect though, and the dialogue was brilliant. I say this as someone who generally dislikes westerns. Dead Man was probably also a revisionist western but I'm not an expert.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
SubG posted:Man, the best thing about The Searchers is the ending. It's one of the half dozen or so films with absolutely loving perfect endings. There's no way you could improve the thing, it's like some kind of optical illusion where you keep looking at it and it keeps on getting better and better, by which I mean unsettling and off-putting. The blackness of the house. The family receding into darkness toward the audience. The only light being the blasted wasteland into which Ethan wanders listlessly. The way he favours his arm. And that's not even taking into account all of the narrative poo poo. It's just a loving astonishing bit of filmmaking. It is so loving good. I was referring to the scene right before that, when Wayne is runnin after the girl and you think he might shoot her like he swore to earlier, and the boy will have to shoot Wayne to save the girl, but then Wayne doesn't shoot her because (?) forced hollywood happy ending.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 05:41
|
|
effectual posted:I was referring to the scene right before that, when Wayne is runnin after the girl and you think he might shoot her like he swore to earlier, and the boy will have to shoot Wayne to save the girl, but then Wayne doesn't shoot her because (?) forced hollywood happy ending. A woman gets to try to re-integrate into a culture she hasn't known since she was 6, while the culture she has now and the people she was raised by have been annihilated. Meanwhile Wayne realizes he has no part in the community he has delivered her to, since the rest of his family is dead and he's spent the better part of the last decade wandering around trying to find her. Pretty happy ending.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
effectual posted:I was referring to the scene right before that, when Wayne is runnin after the girl and you think he might shoot her like he swore to earlier, and the boy will have to shoot Wayne to save the girl, but then Wayne doesn't shoot her because (?) forced hollywood happy ending.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 09:54
|
|
|
This is going to be more of a movie literature question, but I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions on books to read about Andrei Tarkovsky? I've been going through a director's filmography one at a time for my website and I don't know as much about him, or Russian cinema in general, as I would like - though what I have seen is beautiful (Solaris, The Cranes Are Flying, and Battleship Potemkin for a few). Any suggestions would be welcome, and thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
There is a lot to look at for the failure of The Lone Ranger. Of course, Disney and the filmmakers wants to point fingers elsewhere (The critics had it out for us! its not our fault!) It's an old property that people of today aren't ultra fond of, meaning people weren't going out of nostalgia. I thought my dad would have liked it for that reason and he went "Eh, I didn't really get into The Long Ranger. My dad is in his 50s. It's way old, and nostalgia was banked on when it wasn't there. They also banked on Johnny Depp being weird to bring in the numbers, but people are getting tired of it. It is accepted when he's Jack Sparrow (and I think when he does Pirates 5 it will be accepted again) but people aren't as dumb as studios suppose, and they didn't go in for Johnny Depp doing a mystic version of Jack Sparrow. Then of course there is the race issue which was a big no no for a lot of people. They spent too much money on a film that was almost certainly never going to make it back. It was a big gamble and it blew up in their face, but sure, Disney, the critics hate you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:There is a lot to look at for the failure of The Lone Ranger. Of course, Disney and the filmmakers wants to point fingers elsewhere (The critics had it out for us! its not our fault!) Hahaha. Yeah, summer blockbusters are really the types of things to be influenced by critical pans. Richard Roeper said it was cliched and lackluster, well I guess I won't go see this big-budget action movie. Suck it Disney.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
I think with The Lone Ranger, there was a fair amount of press calling it a flop before it ever came out and it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy but also what BigBudgetSequel said about it being an oldass IP that people aren't particularly attached to. It could also be blockbuster fatigue and maybe people got tired of Pirates of the Caribbean movies and didn't want to see another Gore Verbinski/Johnny Depp vehicle (although Rango was excellent) and that westerns aren't as popular as they once were. Maybe the Disney brand is turning toxic unless Pixar is involved. There's a whole lot of possible reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
DIS is doing better than ever: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:DISTheBigBudgetSequel posted:It's an old property that people of today aren't ultra fond of, meaning people weren't going out of nostalgia. I thought my dad would have liked it for that reason and he went "Eh, I didn't really get into The Long Ranger. My dad is in his 50s. It's way old, and nostalgia was banked on when it wasn't there. I think it's hard to pinpoint a direct and prime cause for a movies failure or success but yea the only person I know who wanted to see The Lone Ranger this year was my grandpa who's in his 80s and probably waiting for a Tom Mix revival.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
There have been a few popular westerns recently, but I don't think they're very compatible with the big blockbuster template. Cowboys vs. Aliens was a huge flop, too. You just have to twist the genre to an extreme to justify the kind of spectacle those movies demand. Sci-fi and fantasy work better for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Titanic had the "going to be a flop" buzz and that was the highest grossing movie of all time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
morestuff posted:There have been a few popular westerns recently, but I don't think they're very compatible with the big blockbuster template. Cowboys vs. Aliens was a huge flop, too. edit - What we should be asking is: how did Wreck It Ralph turn out okay? fenix down fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Aug 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:32 |
|
|
Disney is a hydra. Some of its heads are more competent than others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 04:52
|
|
