|
Does anyone have a link to the interview where Tim Burton reveals he's still angry that 40+ years ago an Asian kid was in an episode of The Brady Bunch and how that was the beginning of the end of quality TV/film because of representation gone mad and how he's a true artist for only putting white people in his films? It wasn't even in reaction to anything about his own movies/whatever it was just like an out of nowhere "SJWs OH MY GOOOOD" thing.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Does anyone have a link to the interview where Tim Burton reveals he's still angry that 40+ years ago an Asian kid was in an episode of The Brady Bunch and how that was the beginning of the end of quality TV/film because of representation gone mad and how he's a true artist for only putting white people in his films? It wasn't even in reaction to anything about his own movies/whatever it was just like an out of nowhere "SJWs OH MY GOOOOD" thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:It takes her four years and a favor to get something good after Episode I, exactly as I said. She also hadn't been in a film for three years leading into Episode 1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
wyoming posted:It was cute, wouldn't put it in his top films. Sweeney Todd was a good adaptation, amazing visuals, but a bit uneven. Yeah, Sweeney Todd and Big Fish are all right and Dark Shadows definitely has its moments. None of them come close to his best '90s stuff, unfortunately. And those movies come between absolute garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
I'm still sad we live in a world with Mars Attacks and not Dinosaurs Attack. drat you Tim Burton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:It takes her four years and a favor to get something good after Episode I, exactly as I said. Portman clearly needs a director who cares about getting the best performance out of her, because then she is absolutely amazing. If the director is "whatever" you get Star Wars, Thor and similar "I'm here, give me my cheque"-performances.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
We're talking about Natalie Portman? Jackie was great. She acted the poo poo out of that role.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Sweeney Todd suuuuuuucks, it was a terrible adaptation, the leads can't sing, if it didn't exist I wouldn't hate Tim Burton nearly so personally. OTOH, Mars Attacks exists, so everything balances out
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:It takes her four years and a favor to get something good after Episode I, exactly as I said. I'm not sure you can blame that at Portman and her films, any more than you than you can for any other actress. Casting is a weird, mercurial thing that seems to happen almost independently of performances and box office. c.v. Angelina Jolie who was an A grade star while arguably never having been in a single good film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 09:25
|
|
|
outlier posted:I'm not sure you can blame that at Portman and her films, any more than you than you can for any other actress. Casting is a weird, mercurial thing that seems to happen almost independently of performances and box office. c.v. Angelina Jolie who was an A grade star while arguably never having been in a single good film. Hackers is a work of art 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
outlier posted:I'm not sure you can blame that at Portman and her films, any more than you than you can for any other actress. Casting is a weird, mercurial thing that seems to happen almost independently of performances and box office. c.v. Angelina Jolie who was an A grade star while arguably never having been in a single good film. Whether Jolie has been in a good film is one thing, but she's been in bugger all successful films, as well. She's had about 8 hits scattered over 20 years. Remove those where she was part of an ensemble voice cast for a cartoon, and it's four. Remove those that were based on existing, popular properties, and it's just "Mr and Mrs Smith" And "Gone in 60 Seconds" It's not a terrible career by any stretch but it is at odds with her being perceived as a massive star. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Watched Life last night with a couple of friends. I was slightly disappointed by the lack of body horror. When the first person dies I was expecting it to be a bit more graphic and wanted it to turn a bit more 'Thing' but it never did. Aside from that it was decent enough and ended how I hoped which is a rarity in film these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Whether Jolie has been in a good film is one thing, but she's been in bugger all successful films, as well. She's had about 8 hits scattered over 20 years. Remove those where she was part of an ensemble voice cast for a cartoon, and it's four. Remove those that were based on existing, popular properties, and it's just "Mr and Mrs Smith" And "Gone in 60 Seconds" I don't really have a dog in this fight but I'd put up an argument that Maleficent should be counted as a big hit in her favour. It's true that it was based on an existing property but it was a spinoff of a 55 year old film, it starred the villain and it didn't even have any of the other characters or feature songs like the original.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I don't really have a dog in this fight but I'd put up an argument that Maleficent should be counted as a big hit in her favour. It's true that it was based on an existing property but it was a spinoff of a 55 year old film, it starred the villain and it didn't even have any of the other characters or feature songs like the original. Actually, that is fair, and it was marketed as 'Angelina Jolie, co-starring Angelina Jolie's cheekbones' from day one. Her involvement was very much front and centre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
I think a lot of people consider that movie "post retirement" or something for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
parallelodad posted:I think a lot of people consider that movie "post retirement" or something for some reason. Female and 39? Ooh not a good combination in Hollywood, sorry about that career.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Gone in Sixty Seconds has her as second billing, but she's utterly irrelevant to the plot and doesn't really get more screen time than Duvall, Ribisi, or the dozen other people that fill up that big rear end ensemble cast.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Female and 39? Ooh not a good combination in Hollywood, sorry about that career.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
wyoming posted:Huh, looking at imdb he did Miss Peregrine's, figured it was just some Burton wannabe. That came out? I don't know if I've heard a single person talk about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:That came out? I don't know if I've heard a single person talk about it. I have one student who is reading the book because he liked the movie. Other than that, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Whether Jolie has been in a good film is one thing, but she's been in bugger all successful films, as well. She's had about 8 hits scattered over 20 years. Remove those where she was part of an ensemble voice cast for a cartoon, and it's four. Remove those that were based on existing, popular properties, and it's just "Mr and Mrs Smith" And "Gone in 60 Seconds" Check out the results of this VF poll : http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/04/angelina-jolie-is-the-most-beautiful-woman-in-the-world 58% of people that voted think she's the most beautiful woman in the world. It's a real phenomenon - people just vibe with something about her in an intense manner. I actually hadn't even stopped to think that she's made generally pretty average movies. Tomb Raider was huge and she's made good choices overall, I would say, but looking over the filmography it's just kinda sparse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
She stole Brad Pitt from Jennifer Aniston and then broke his heart. She is a monster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
I think Angelina Jolie is more of a professional celebrity than an actress, nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Seems like she's pretty focussed on their foundation and directing. Speak of red-carpet noteworthiness, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Versace_dress_of_Jennifer_Lopez quote:In January 2015, Google's president Eric Schmidt cited the massive attention to this dress as a motivation for the creation of Google Images search.[27] In 2000, Google Search results were limited to simple pages of text with links, but the developers worked on developing this further, realising that an image search was required to answer "the most popular search query" they had seen to date: Jennifer Lopez's green dress.[27] As a result of this, Google Images search was born.[27] It's weird to think how cultural events spin off and affect things that you'd never expect. Nowadays we take Google Images for granted, but if it wasn't for J Lo's famous dress, who knows what may've happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Apparently 25 minutes of the new transformers movie was screened and it revealed who the The Last Knight is it's Marky Mark, apparently back in King Arthur times there were 12 transformers that fought alongside the 12 knights of the round table to defend the peace between humans and transformers. Wahlburg is the new chosen one to reform King Arthur's court and sue for peace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
loving drat it. Looks like I'm going to see a Transformer movie
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
That doesnt answer my question if there is a knight who rides on a horse that is a transformer which is frankly all I want to know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
gently caress yes, glad I read that spoiler. I've only seen the 4th transformers movie anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
I did see a trailer the other night where Optimus Prime said something insane like "This is for your own good!" while murdering a dude. I really want to see how crazy he is now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
This sounds dumb enough for me to actually watch all the way through, in a theater even.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnCdOQsX5kc
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
There's two of these coming out? How does the story justify that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:There's two of these coming out? How does the story justify that? The story has two parts, adult and child. It's just about a perfect fit to split into a pairof movies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
New Valerian trailer looks pretty great https://youtu.be/cPeqNTqZNN0
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Leavemywife posted:The story has two parts, adult and child. It's just about a perfect fit to split into a pairof movies. Sounds like the first movie will be all Loser's Club, and the second with be adult cast cut with flashbacks to the kids. e: and based on that teaser it looks scary as poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
It definitely looks scarier than the TV movie, but Tim Curry's still gonna be a hell of a tough act to follow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
So it's set in the 1980's and now? That a nice update to the story. Other question, shouldn't Pennywise look like a normal clown? It's a bit self-defeating for a clown to be intentionally scary. SimonCat fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
A good solution would be for him to have a normal clown appearance and the devil clown one. Also giant spider made out of lights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Pennywise was always described as being creepy looking but in such a way that it wasn't obvious at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
SimonCat posted:So it's set in the 1980's and now? That a nice update to the story. Clowns are essentially a non-thing in 2017. I'm sure they're still goofing around at the circus, but the circus is essentially a non-thing in 2017. Modern audiences are going to be creeped out by clowns, regardless of when the story is set. Yes, that's partially thanks to the original It book and miniseries, but probably moreso thanks to John Wayne Gacy and, well, how inherently weird and offputting the whole cartoonish 1900s hobo makeup and exaggerated slapstick act is. Like, what's a friendly-seeming clown even look like? Because I think if you showed a picture of one to anyone these days they'd still find it weird and creepy. If people are going to be creeped out by a clown no matter what, why not just push that and let it be as creepy as they can?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 19:45
|
|