Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
MarcusSA
Sep 23, 2007

Oasx posted:

The trailer to Poker Face makes it look like Lyonne is just playing the same character from Russian Doll.

Yeah this was my thought as well. Not that it’s a bad thing.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

IRQ
Sep 9, 2001

SUCK A DICK, DUMBSHITS!

Pan Dulce posted:

I don't know if anyone's a Hollywood insider or has this information, but do you think Roiland came out of this with a ton of compensation cash for his contracts not being fulfilled or did it skew the other way, with his contracts being rendered null and void due to, I dunno, decency clauses in place mean no severance packages?

It's still his ip, he just won't have to do any work to get paid now.

I really can't see those shows going on for 3 more seasons like they plan to, but still.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004


Grimey Drawer

feedmyleg posted:

Yes, she's playing Natasha Lyonne.

Rageaholic
May 31, 2005

Old Town Road to EGOT

:sickos:

Unkempt
May 24, 2003

...perfect spiral, scientists are still figuring it out...

Oasx posted:

The trailer to Poker Face makes it look like Lyonne is just playing the same character from Russian Doll.

Well she annoyed the gently caress out of me in Russian Doll but I'm halfway in to the first Poker Face and I'm enjoying it, so :shrug:

Also, Columbo references are off the scale here

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.


Aqua Teen Hunger Force is back for a season 12.

https://www.ign.com/articles/aqua-teen-hunger-force-returning-to-adult-swim-after-8-years

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

feedmyleg posted:

Yes, she's playing Natasha Lyonne.

Whadda concept

Pan Dulce
Jan 4, 2011

Beautiful cinnamon roll too good for this world, too pure



IRQ posted:

It's still his ip, he just won't have to do any work to get paid now.

I really can't see those shows going on for 3 more seasons like they plan to, but still.

Wow. So there are no consequences for rich assholes then. It's more of a forced paid vacation. That sucks.



On another note, I saw Paramount+'s new teen fare, Wolf Pack. I was hoping to see more of Sarah Michelle Gellar, but if you're watching this for her, you're going to be disappointed in how little you get. Also, the CGI is, again, MTV-level so terrible. Tons of dramatic running sequences. I did appreciate how they used regular teen acne and scarring as a way to explain how drastic the change to werewolf-hood is, aesthetically. The main girl is dang annoying though, with her tough girl shell and "I don't believe in anything," attitude. Also, of course, there's a werewolf named Luna. Why the hell not? Also, like most teen dramas, the parental figures are inexplicable assholes, but I'm hoping we get more to them than that. It wasn't all that bad though. The main male character shows promise and the little kid is quite convincing as someone on the autism spectrum.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

Literally no one knows what the financials are but it is interesting that everyone is choosing to believe the thing that lets them be the most mad about it. He hasn't even gone to trial yet, he's looking at real time. He's never going to be welcome in polite society again, he'll never make shows again, this is a guy who was on the absolute top of his profession, who has been ubiquitous in media aimed at certain age cohorts, and now his career is ruined. That is not "no consequences" that is "extreme loving consequences"

IRQ
Sep 9, 2001

SUCK A DICK, DUMBSHITS!

zoux posted:

He's never going to be welcome in polite society again, he'll never make shows again

You're a lot more sure of that than I am. Hey, did you know Roman Polanski has a movie coming out this year?

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004


Grimey Drawer
How many screens is it playing in?

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

"The Palace is set to be theatrically released in Russia in early 2023."

lol

Also I think the politics of sexual misbehavior are a little different here in the 2020s than it was in the 1960s.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004


Grimey Drawer
Starring hot property Mickey Rourke

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

And John Cleese!

If Roman Polanski hadn't drugged and raped that girl (or hadn't been caught) he'd be feted at every opportunity, he'd be doing masterclass seminars in new york city to full houses and receiving major awards yearly, would be working with the tippy top of the Hollywood elite, with every star willing to come to him and work for him for scale. Instead, he's making tiny arthouse movies with washed up actors to the acclaim of a handful of French parlour pedophiles.

zoux fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jan 26, 2023

Cael
Feb 2, 2004

I get this funky high on the yellow sun.


gently caress YOU WARNER, GIVE US THE VENTURE BROS MOVIE

IRQ
Sep 9, 2001

SUCK A DICK, DUMBSHITS!

zoux posted:

And John Cleese!

If Roman Polanski hadn't drugged and raped that girl (or hadn't been caught) he'd be feted at every opportunity, he'd be doing masterclass seminars in new york city to full houses and receiving major awards yearly, would be working with the tippy top of the Hollywood elite, with every star willing to come to him and work for him for scale. Instead, he's making tiny arthouse movies with washed up actors to the acclaim of a handful of French parlour pedophiles.

And a budget of 17 million euro.

But I hope you're right and he never works again and somehow loses all his money. I just don't think you are.

thrawn527
Mar 27, 2004

Thrawn/Pellaeon
Studying the art of terrorists
To keep you safe

zoux posted:

And John Cleese!

If Roman Polanski hadn't drugged and raped that girl (or hadn't been caught) he'd be feted at every opportunity, he'd be doing masterclass seminars in new york city to full houses and receiving major awards yearly, would be working with the tippy top of the Hollywood elite, with every star willing to come to him and work for him for scale. Instead, he's making tiny arthouse movies with washed up actors to the acclaim of a handful of French parlour pedophiles.

It took a long time to get to that point with Polanski, though. In just 2009, a bunch of Hollywood A-listers signed a petition calling for his release after his arrest in Switzerland. On this petition was Wes Anderson, Harrison Ford, Natalie Portman, Darren Aronofsky, Adrien Brody, Martin Scorsese, Guillermo del Toro, Jonathan Demme, Terry Gilliam, Jeremy Irons, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Steven Soderbergh, and Emma Thompson. These aren't nobodies, and 2009 wasn't that long ago. I'm glad he's ostracized now, but in the last 2 decades, you had people standing up at the Oscars and Golden Globes praising him and calling for him to be able to come back to the United States as a free man. It was wild poo poo.

Hopefully in a post-Me Too world, that won't fly anymore. Hopefully.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

If he dodges prison, the most likely outcome imo is he redpills himself and goes full Proud Boy reactionary and starts catering to that crowd. Er, catering more to that crowd, I guess.

Azhais
Feb 5, 2007
Switchblade Switcharoo
If the US dropped charges against Polanski all those things would immediately happen.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004


Grimey Drawer
Poker Face thread's up: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=4022656

Gonz
Dec 22, 2009

"Jesus, did I say that? Or just think it? Was I talking? Did they hear me?"

THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO

BEFORE SIGOURNEY WEAVER

Read After Burning
Feb 19, 2013

"All this, for me? 💃Ah, you didn't have to! 🥰"

I hope the voice of Frylock (Carey Means) can somehow get royalties off this one. :smith: I think it's due to some "right to work" weirdness (not too familiar with that), but he got paid way less than, say, Dana Snyder did, due to the latter being in SAG.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/russes...sh=3b05536f1ee4

Pan Dulce
Jan 4, 2011

Beautiful cinnamon roll too good for this world, too pure



By the by, if anyone in the U.S. interested in the tv show called Extraordinary that everywhere on Google is saying is airing on Disney+? Yeah, check Hulu.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

Michael Shannon did an interview with Chicago Trib's film critic about the Rust shooting and how gun safety is supposed to work on a set and what he thinks went wrong

quote:

Q: We’ve read a lot from variously informed people about whether Alec Baldwin deserves these involuntary manslaughter charges, whether they’ll stick, and what appears to have failed completely with the safety protocols on “Rust.” For those of us who’ve never handled firearms on a movie set, walk us through the process.

A: Sure. It’s not a sloppy procedure, in my experience. It’s very, very meticulous. On most sets, if there is any activity that’s considered potentially risky in any way, shape or form, they start the day with a safety meeting the assistant director runs. They go through all the possible dangerous on-camera activity, and how we’re going to handle that to make sure nobody gets hurt. That’s how the day starts. And all of the armorers I’ve worked with have been super fastidious about what they do.

But “Rust” is an example of a problem I see in filmmaking more and more these days. On smaller productions, independent productions, the producers keep wanting more and more for less and less. They don’t want to give you enough money. They cut corners, ridiculously, every which way. And they get away with it. (“Rust” began shooting with a $7 million production budget.) So every time someone makes a great movie for a million dollars, it sets a precedent. The financiers say, well, Joe Blow made a movie for a million, we’re gonna give you a million, too. And you’re, like, “But I need $3 million to make it the right way.” And they say “Well, I guess you won’t do it, then.” They whittle the budget down to the bare minimum — but the one thing you can’t cut corners on is your armorer. If you have guns in your movie, that’s no place to cut corners.

The person on “Rust” clearly was not qualified for the job. She should not have been there.

Q: According to the prosecutor, it was up to Baldwin, in addition to the armorer, to ensure the safety of the pistol Baldwin was using for the scene. After the charges last week, the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists responded in part with this union statement: “The prosecutor’s contention that an actor has a duty to ensure the functional and mechanical operation of a firearm on a production set is wrong and uninformed. An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.”

A: That’s right. If it were up to the actor to determine whether a firearm is safe or not, you wouldn’t need an armorer in the first place. Being an armorer is a hard job, a demanding job, and I have nothing but respect for them. But in this instance, it was going into the ER and finding out your doctor isn’t a real doctor.

When you’re rehearsing a scene with a gun in it, and you’re on set, the gun you’re given almost always is not a gun. It’s a rubber replica. Maybe a plastic one. It is not a firearm. (Video of Baldwin rehearsing a cross-draw before filming a scene from “Rust” reveals the actor with his finger on or near the trigger of the weapon that ultimately killed Hutchins.) That’s what you have during any sort of rehearsal or walk-through, right up until you’re figuring out the shot, and what your firing line will be, all of that. You shouldn’t have the actual weapon in your hand until immediately before doing the take.

Now, sometimes that doesn’t happen. Sometimes they’ll give you the actual gun to rehearse with a little closer to filming. But there’s a procedure for that. They open the barrel. They show you there’s nothing in there. They show you the chambers, they show the assistant director, and it’s a visual confirmation. The AD’s supposed to check it, the actor checks it and the armorer has checked it. All three of those people have to see there’s nothing in there. And then they hand it to you.

With “Rust,” before that gun went into his hand, (Baldwin) should have seen with his own eyes there was nothing in it.

Q: But not on his own initiative?

A: No. The armorer should’ve brought the gun over to him and said: Here is your firearm. It is empty. Or maybe (the gun) has decoy or dummy rounds in it; you pull the trigger, nothing happens. But you never settle for walking up to an actor and handing the gun over without showing them what’s inside of it. Ever. That was the cataclysmic event on “Rust.” (There have been widespread reports of problems on the “Rust” set prior to the fatal accident involving the accidental discharge of firearms.)

As an actor, if I’m handed a weapon, my finger does not go in the trigger hole at all. I learned this at a very young age as an actor. You lay your finger outside, along the barrel of the gun. You do not put your finger in the trigger hole unless you’re going for a take. If you’re holding a firearm between takes, which you shouldn’t be, you point it at the ground until somebody comes and collects it from you.

I’m not condemning Alec. I feel horrible for the guy. It’s a nightmare. I feel terrible for everyone on that production. But this is what happens when you lowball and cut corners and hire people that may not be qualified, and pay them next to nothing, and make the movie on the cheap. People get jobs in this business because they’re willing to work for a low enough fee. I see it all the time.

Since this happened, I think the armorer might become obsolete. There’s a big push now to do (all the gunfire) in post, you know, postproduction. No more live firing on set, period. So you act like you’re firing a gun when you’re not. It’s called “acting.” And it’s truly not worth dying for.

The other thing you could do, I guess, is take the frickin’ gunplay out of movies in general. I mean, enough, already. You want to watch somebody shoot somebody? There are 500,000 movies already with plenty of it.

That's actually a much stricter degree of safety than I was expecting.

Escobarbarian
Jun 18, 2004


Grimey Drawer
Michael Shannon is a very cool guy

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

He's on my list of "If he's in it, I'm seeing it" actors for sure.

Medullah
Aug 14, 2003

FEAR MY SHARK ROCKET IT REALLY SUCKS AND BLOWS
I liked the first episode of Poker Face. It seems like it's got the "mystery of the week" vibe I generally enjoy.

Edit - This is Natasha Lyonne doing Columbo

Medullah fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jan 27, 2023

Parakeet vs. Phone
Nov 6, 2009
Interesting interview although he didn't address the weirdness of how Baldwin maybe being a real producer makes all of that fuzzier. That's really a huge part of it. He might have been one of those people insisting that they didn't have the extra money. Also whether he was refusing to engage with the safety lessons that would have pointed out things like how the gun could go off if you cock it while holding the trigger.

Also I'm torn on the argument of getting rid of prop guns or gunplay. Plenty of room for fun action movies as long as people on set aren't horrifically undertrained and bad prop guns fixed up in post definitely look worse. Flashbacks to later season Person of Interest. But at the same time, I happened to see clips from Zero-Zero-Zero again recently, and someone pointed out how the guns look horribly fake (literally just airsoft pieces that are painted up) but they put so much effort into making the gunmen move well and handle the guns right that you don't really notice it in the scene. :shrug:

Also gotta watch Poker Face. Also, also hoping that American Auto is decent this season. Liked it last season and we need more decent sitcoms.

ruddiger
Jun 3, 2004

Escobarbarian posted:

Michael Shannon is a very cool guy

I remember first seeing him in Chicago Cab and was instantly enamored with him.

AceOfFlames
Oct 9, 2012

Parakeet vs. Phone posted:

Interesting interview although he didn't address the weirdness of how Baldwin maybe being a real producer makes all of that fuzzier. That's really a huge part of it. He might have been one of those people insisting that they didn't have the extra money. Also whether he was refusing to engage with the safety lessons that would have pointed out things like how the gun could go off if you cock it while holding the trigger.

Also I'm torn on the argument of getting rid of prop guns or gunplay. Plenty of room for fun action movies as long as people on set aren't horrifically undertrained and bad prop guns fixed up in post definitely look worse. Flashbacks to later season Person of Interest. But at the same time, I happened to see clips from Zero-Zero-Zero again recently, and someone pointed out how the guns look horribly fake (literally just airsoft pieces that are painted up) but they put so much effort into making the gunmen move well and handle the guns right that you don't really notice it in the scene. :shrug:

Also gotta watch Poker Face. Also, also hoping that American Auto is decent this season. Liked it last season and we need more decent sitcoms.

Fun fact: they switched to bad prop guns because Jim Caviezel was such a reckless loving maniac with the blank firing guns, they decided to keep them away from them before he hurt or killed someone.

Parakeet vs. Phone
Nov 6, 2009
I also think they got into a lot of trouble with NYC over squibs or blanks, unless I'm mixing them up with another show. Shannon's quote in the interview about maybe just using swords is funny in that context though since they also initially insisted on him only using guns because the crew was allegedly afraid that he'd really smash some poor extra's knee with a tire iron if they gave him one.

Read After Burning
Feb 19, 2013

"All this, for me? 💃Ah, you didn't have to! 🥰"

Escobarbarian posted:

Michael Shannon is a very cool guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dngOH9G4UPw

:allears: I quote parts of this all the time, namely "YOU! DON'T! GO!" and "You're weird poo poo, who does weird poo poo during the day..."

zoux posted:

He's on my list of "If he's in it, I'm seeing it" actors for sure.

:same:, him and Goggins. I got George And Tammy on my "To watch" list!

theflyingexecutive
Apr 22, 2007

Were they using more than quarter load blanks? NYC is v strict about that

Parakeet vs. Phone
Nov 6, 2009

theflyingexecutive posted:

Were they using more than quarter load blanks? NYC is v strict about that

Maybe that was just it. That they had to use the blanks with less powder and opted to just use CGI because it wasn't worth the trouble for the effect. Googling didn't help since it turns out "Person of Interest" is kind of a polluted search term even if you add "TV" to it :).

Jerusalem
May 20, 2004

Would you be my new best friends?

Michael Shannon posted:

It’s called “acting.” And it’s truly not worth dying for.

Escobarbarian posted:

Michael Shannon is a very cool guy

:agreed::hf::same:

theblackw0lf
Apr 15, 2003

"...creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature"
Decided to shell out 5 bucks for an ad service Peacock sub to watch Poker Face, and after three episodes feel it was money well worth spent.

Just a joy to watch.

Chairman Capone
Dec 17, 2008

theblackw0lf posted:

Decided to shell out 5 bucks for an ad service Peacock sub to watch Poker Face, and after three episodes feel it was money well worth spent.

Just a joy to watch.

Do yourself a favor and watch Paul T. Goldman, as well.

I also thought The Resort was worth watching, if you have the sub anyways.

Oasx
Oct 11, 2006

Freshly Squeezed

Parakeet vs. Phone posted:

Flashbacks to later season Person of Interest. But at the same time, I happened to see clips from Zero-Zero-Zero again recently, and someone pointed out how the guns look horribly fake (literally just airsoft pieces that are painted up) but they put so much effort into making the gunmen move well and handle the guns right that you don't really notice it in the scene. :shrug:

I have watched that season of Person of Interest several times and I didn’t notice anything odd about the guns.

bull3964
Nov 18, 2000

DO YOU HEAR THAT? THAT'S THE SOUND OF ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK.


That’s the thing, most people won’t.

Part of the issue is the hyper-fixation of guns in the U.S. There is LITERALLY an internet movie firearms database. Sure our hero took so many blows he should be suffering from a concussion for the next 3 months, but you better not have the wrong magazine in that prop gun or it TOTALLY blows all realism.

Gun lose deflate all dramatic tension the instant they are fired. After that, they are simply special effects and they should really be treated as such. If your action choreography is good and engaging, no one sane is going to even loving notice that the muzzle flashes are CG.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Chubby Henparty
Aug 13, 2007


AceOfFlames posted:

Fun fact: they switched to bad prop guns because Jim Caviezel was such a reckless loving maniac with the blank firing guns, they decided to keep them away from them before he hurt or killed someone.

I much preferred when Jim Caviezel's rep was just being very catholic but very quiet :( (same time as when Roseanne Barr was a working class feminist hero I guess)

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply