|
I just watched The Mist. I liked it. It was a little unfocused. I need to think about the message. Wish I would've watched it in black and white. How close is it to the novella? Does it closely match the movie, or is there more discussion of the personal dynamics inside the store? Also, haha. I see in the credits that they used the song "Apollo To The Rescue" from BSG (presumably TOS?). That's one hell of a bizarre crossover. E: Also, is the commentary worth it?
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
cletepurcel posted:It's not made explicitly clear in the movie but yeah I think that it was a veiled threat against family members or something. This theory is reinforced by the fact Michael gets Tom Hagen to talk Frankie into killing himself in the bathtub after, specifically so that his family will be protected. They still would have loved for him to testify at some point, and he would definitely be killed if he was released from Witness Protection so they would lose that potential asset. Henry Hill had already testified, he had no leverage so they didn't give a gently caress what happened to him once he broke the rules.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:I just watched The Mist. I liked it. It was a little unfocused. I need to think about the message. Wish I would've watched it in black and white. The movie is almost exactly like the book, save for the very ending, which in the movie is a giant gulp of drizzled poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
Two Orson Welles agree. It really drives me nuts, too, because the rest of the film is so well-done and the book's ending would have been really fitting. What they did feels so cheap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Two Orson Welles agree. It really drives me nuts, too, because the rest of the film is so well-done and the book's ending would have been really fitting. What they did feels so cheap. Baby Hitler nods in agreement. That ending is so utterly lame, in every way. People resort to cannabalism, to cutting off their own limbs with dull a dull jackknife, drink their own piss and eat cloth to survive, and you expect me to believe a father is willing to kill his own kid after a few days or whatever time is supposed lapse, is, as you said it extremely cheap. I didn't buy it for a second. Also, my own question. Does anyone know how actors are payed? Is it a one time sum (excepting percentages, residuals etc) or do they get paid per day?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 05:57
|
|
|
Wow. Completely disagree. The book's ending was a tired old trope. The movie's ending was far better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
I still don't know what I think about the ending of the Mist, really. I like breaking convention, and I totally respect the fact that they were willing to make the crazy fundamentalist woman in the store completely and totally right, but the ending seemed kind of cheap and black comedy-ish. Because of the ending, I mentally file it right next to Very Bad Things and the Matt Dillon Employee of The Month (not the Dane Cook one).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:14
|
|
|
Anyone seen the Japanese movie symbol?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:18
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
Power of Pecota posted:...I totally respect the fact that they were willing to make the crazy fundamentalist woman in the store completely and totally right... Wait, what? Are you confusing the crazy religious bitch for the woman who "foolishly" walked out into the mist on her own?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
Sizzlechest posted:Wait, what? Are you confusing the crazy religious bitch for the woman who "foolishly" walked out into the mist on her own? I don't think he is. Crazy bitch says that if they sacrifice the boy, the mist will got away. When the loving and caring daddy shots the kid the mist disappears
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
I gotta go with Sizzlechest on this one. The book's ending is more subtle, yeah, but also more conventional and less horrific. On the other hand, this is a debate that crops up about every 30 minutes in cinema discusso and the book barn, so maybe I should just leave well enough alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:38
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that it should have ended like this http://oneshort.ytmnd.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
Trump posted:I don't think he is. Crazy bitch says that if they sacrifice the boy, the mist will got away. When the loving and caring daddy shots the kid the mist disappears Not to mention she also condemns the supply trip where they find Andre Braugher's body, which ends pretty much exactly as she said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 06:53
|
|
|
Trump posted:Also, my own question. Does anyone know how actors are payed? Is it a one time sum (excepting percentages, residuals etc) or do they get paid per day? It depends on what you mean by paid - they get a lump sum for their involvement with the film, in addition to a "per diem" (if they are on location) to cover their daily expenses. It depends on the deal negotiated for the actor, and if they get a piece of the back end, as well as residuals from their guild. For the most part, actors get one big fat payment for a film.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 07:16
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:It depends on what you mean by paid - they get a lump sum for their involvement with the film, in addition to a "per diem" (if they are on location) to cover their daily expenses. It depends on the deal negotiated for the actor, and if they get a piece of the back end, as well as residuals from their guild. Is there anywhere to read up on this? I know star contracts are all hush-hush, but the reason I ask is because I found that actors here in Denmark gets paid per day. They still get an obscene amount of money, like $3-4000 a day, nothing compared to hollywood stars I know. It just surprised me, but also somehow makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 09:12
|
|
|
This will likely be a really retarded question but how many movies have been made? I mean obviously forgetting stuff we can track, is there a roundabout figure anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 11:21
|
|
|
Binowru posted:I just rewatched The Godfather Part II and I had a question. During the Senate hearings, they bring in Frank Pentangeli's brother, which instantly makes Pentangeli disavow any incriminating knowledge he has on Michael. Did they ever make it explicit why the mere presence of his brother caused him to do this? Like did they threaten to kill him or something? I always saw that scene as Frank being embarrassed of breaking family tradition and honor because his big brother was watching; not because of fear of death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 11:44
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Two Orson Welles agree. It really drives me nuts, too, because the rest of the film is so well-done and the book's ending would have been really fitting. What they did feels so cheap. To me, there are two parts to the ending to The Mist. The first part is him killing everyone else in the car, I am fine with either that ending or the book's ending. The second part is the "twist" that if he had waited a few more seconds everyone would have been fine. That is what really bothers me. One because it is too happy an ending for the movie. I thought the movie did a great job of building a bleak atmosphere where you don't know if the rest of the world is also being taken over by the Mist (similar to The Birds). Then the twist comes and its "Don't, worry the humans have it all under control, one father had a bad day, but otherwise everything is alright." Also, that twist itself is rather poor, (when they parked the car I thought to myself, "This better not be some bad twist where they find out they were parked right outside of a human encampment the whole time." Instead, the humans survivors came to them.) Having that ending takes what was otherwise a good movie with a great atmosphere and makes it a twist movie instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 12:53
|
|
|
Trump posted:Is there anywhere to read up on this? I know star contracts are all hush-hush, but the reason I ask is because I found that actors here in Denmark gets paid per day. They still get an obscene amount of money, like $3-4000 a day, nothing compared to hollywood stars I know. It just surprised me, but also somehow makes a lot more sense. Actors in the UK and UK (and I think most of Europe) are either on a daily rate (smaller roles) or get a larger fee which is paid on a weekly basis. The minimum in the US is determined by SAG scale, although name actors obviously get a lot more. When we do an actor deal with a lead or major supporting role it'll be a lump sum either for s specified number of weeks, or a "picture deal' where they are available (but not necessarily working) for the duration of the shoot. A weekly rate is then worked out, and payment made accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 13:28
|
|
|
The message I got from the end of The Mist is basically never give up hope, no matter what. I liked it, shocked the hell out of me when I saw it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 13:31
|
|
|
Elijya posted:The message I got from the end of The Mist is basically never give up hope, no matter what. I liked it, shocked the hell out of me when I saw it. I liked it too, and I loved the novella before I saw the movie. It was just a different direction to take the story, and honestly a nightmare world where acid-spitting giant bugs or razor-tentacled monsters roam just out of eyesight but can snatch you at any moment is not a world I'd want my terrified kid to live in. Not saying I'd be up for shooting him, but that's the real horror of the situation - having to make that decision. And there are a handful of cinematic fades and wipes and stuff, to imply time passing in the void of the Mist. I assumed they drove for as long as they had gas, maybe a few hundred miles, and found no refuge. How long he sat there before and after shooting everyone is also unclear.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
I liked the ending conceptually, but the execution "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" was a little lacking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
Trump posted:Is there anywhere to read up on this? I know star contracts are all hush-hush, but the reason I ask is because I found that actors here in Denmark gets paid per day. They still get an obscene amount of money, like $3-4000 a day, nothing compared to hollywood stars I know. It just surprised me, but also somehow makes a lot more sense. What you are looking for are actor deal memos, which are one of the most confidential things in a film/TV production. Not to say you can't find them anywhere, you'll just have a hard time finding a few online to peruse. They basically outline things like screen credit, production perks, per diem, union vs non-union rate, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
Trump posted:I don't think he is. Crazy bitch says that if they sacrifice the boy, the mist will got away. When the loving and caring daddy shots the kid the mist disappears Whoa you're blowing my mind. Like I said though I'm sort of still processing. I'm not sure how I feel that we saw so much of the creatures; when you see them, you can figure them out, but when they're shadows and noises you're in perpetual fear. Regarding the "survival" aspect of the story, I feel like hair spray + lighters would've been the go-to weapon after the first bugs. At least, that would have been my reaction. Also it's sort of a no-brainer to have a radio on at all times scanning. When the military got control they probably would have started broadcasting hope on all bands. ....buuuuuut that's not what the movie is really about so I'm trying not to think about that aspect too much. The ending was a little jarring and not because of the deaths really but because in the span of five minutes we see the most gigantic creature ever and thinking "oh man we're really screwed now" to "it's over".
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 02:24
|
|
|
^^^^^ I never thought about the end of the movie that way, but gently caress, they're right. Crazy bitch was right! Now that I think about it some more, the movie ending fits even better. The black guy who was the voice of rational reason gets killed due to his lack of faith. jjack229 posted:
That is the first time I ever heard someone calling the ending of the movie too happy. 
Sizzlechest fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Aug 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 02:33
|
|
about "The Mist."
|
Factor Mystic posted:Whoa you're blowing my mind. Like I said though I'm sort of still processing. I'm not sure how I feel that we saw so much of the creatures; when you see them, you can figure them out, but when they're shadows and noises you're in perpetual fear. I will get slaughtered for this, but this might be because the creature designs are absolutely horrible and goes against the way King describes them in the novella. In the movie they are clearly nightmarish creations designed to be horrible looking and scary. In the novella they are just fauna from another world or dimension, completely alien to us, but more or less just doing what animals does in the wild. Trying to find something to feed on. Half-Life is the better adaption anyway. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Trump posted:I will get slaughtered for this, but this might be because the creature designs are absolutely horrible and goes against the way King describes them in the novella. In the movie they are clearly nightmarish creations designed to be horrible looking and scary. In the novella they are just fauna from another world or dimension, completely alien to us, but more or less just doing what animals does in the wild. Trying to find something to feed on. I don't really know where you're getting this, they're the same creatures exactly. Humans are squishy and at the bottom of their food chain. quote:The message I got from the end of The Mist is basically never give up hope, no matter what. I liked it, shocked the hell out of me when I saw it. Except the guys who took a fighting chance fared worse than the hopeless people in the grocery store. The movie ending is a lazy kick to the balls and is pretty repulsive. Name Change fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Aug 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I don't really know where you're getting this, they're the same creatures exactly. Humans are squishy and at the bottom of their food chain. They are stupid designs with human teeth and skulls as faces, amongst other things. They just look lame and cartoonishly monstrous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 05:22
|
|
|
Trump posted:They are stupid designs with human teeth and skulls as faces, amongst other things. They just look lame and cartoonishly monstrous. Still not really getting this. Maybe we watched different movies. I remember tentacles, some crab monsters, mosquitoes from hell, hosed-up pterodactyls, and some really, really unpleasant spiders. I didn't get anything cartoonish out of them. It was pretty much straight-up Cthulhu.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
Trump posted:They are stupid designs with human teeth and skulls as faces, amongst other things. They just look lame and cartoonishly monstrous. There wasn't a single humanoid monster in the bunch unless you count the spiders who kind of had human faces. I'm in the minority that I really liked the movie and the ending. I got the sense that they saw some really horrible things while they were driving like the 300 ft tall monstrosity that they passed. They got much more exposure to what was really out there then they did in the store, which was probably enough to have them lose all hope. My question is, what exactly do producers do on a film and how much influence do they have? Who do they answer to? Do they typically override or outrank a director? What's the difference between a producer and an executive producer? You hear things like so and so got a "producer" credit, is that just a money thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 06:56
|
|
|
Trump posted:Is there anywhere to read up on this? I know star contracts are all hush-hush, but the reason I ask is because I found that actors here in Denmark gets paid per day. They still get an obscene amount of money, like $3-4000 a day, nothing compared to hollywood stars I know. It just surprised me, but also somehow makes a lot more sense. You want to find out more about this, you might have some luck hunting around for EMTs who work on sets. Actors and direct movie personnel will probably hesitate to talk about their money online, but EMTs who work for movies will gladly talk all the dirt you can handle about the movie industry. Don't know where you find them online, but I worked with a few who talked endlessly and openly about everything. EMTs do not travel, it seems, but are hired locally, because of state licensing for what they do. SO for instance when Baywatch/Waterworld/JUrassic Park/Etc shot in Hawaii, the medical staff was all Hawaii people, many of whom specialize in working for whatever movie is in production.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 07:30
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:My question is, what exactly do producers do on a film and how much influence do they have? Who do they answer to? Do they typically override or outrank a director? What's the difference between a producer and an executive producer? You hear things like so and so got a "producer" credit, is that just a money thing? It depends on what level of producer we are talking about. I was just thinking about this last night, actually. In VERY simplistic terms (and remembering that every production is different) here's how the producer hierarchy breaks down: EXECUTIVE PRODUCER - typically the money, or the link to the money, or the link to the talent. This is a vanity credit people get who don't really have anything to do with the production but demand some kind of compensation. One of the EPs are usually doing some heavy lifting with managing the budget and hiring crew, but that usually falls to an Associate Producer. PRODUCER - the one really doing all the work. This person is the link between the studio and the production crew, and is usually the most powerful person working on a film. They usually can override decisions made by a director, hire a writer to do a set rewrite, stuff like that. In the editing room, it's usually a pissing match between producer and director over who gets final cut, and it all depends on the director's contract. ASSOCIATE or LINE PRODUCER or Unit Production Manager - usually the money person, coordinates what crew gets hired and how much they are paid, keeps an eye on the budget and production schedule. This is the person you want to make friends with, they have the dirt on EVERYBODY! SUPERVISING PRODUCER - a credit for development executives, writers, and everyone else associated with the film who is important enough to warrant a producer credit but with too little power to demand an EP credit. For a larger film, you usually end up with both an Associate Producer and a Line Producer AND a Unit Production Manager. For a smaller film, you might only have a Line Producer. It just depends on how many locations you are shooting in, how much crew you have to wrangle, how many stunts your film calls for, etc. It also depends on how the film is being financed. Most independent films have over a dozen people as producers, as every company putting in money has at least one person looking for a film credit. It's funny to see older films where ONE PERSON is given a producer credit, and that's really it. Back in the day, producer credits were usually given to the most powerful person who put the film together (ie David Brown, Darryl Zanuck, etc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 08:30
|
|
|
KillRoy posted:300 ft tall monstrosity that they passed More like 3000ft at least. Biggest thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
Sizzlechest posted:
Compared to the novella, it really is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
What exactly happened on the set of The Devil's Own? Why was everyone so pissed off at each other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2010 23:24
|
|
|
DannoMack posted:What exactly happened on the set of The Devil's Own? Why was everyone so pissed off at each other? Now I can't tell if Pitt's awful acting was because he's an utter failure in dramatic roles or if it was some sort of revenge. Entertainment Weekly, back when they used to write interesting articles, wrote some in-depth pieces about the whole situation: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,293309,00.html http://www.bradpittpress.com/artint_97_ew2.php
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
Ford is terrible for that kind of poo poo. He got them to keep rewriting his role in 'Traffic' and then just pulled out at the last minute. Michael Douglas stepped in and did the role as a favour.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 08:50
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Ford is terrible for that kind of poo poo. He got them to keep rewriting his role in 'Traffic' and then just pulled out at the last minute. Michael Douglas stepped in and did the role as a favour. By that time, Douglas had read the rewritten script (Catherine Zeta-Jones had signed on during Soderbergh's initial pitch to Douglas and was receiving rewrites), liked the changes and signed on. For what it's worth, Soderbergh has said that Ford's notes made the character far more interesting than what was originally written. However, I'm glad Ford dropped out, as I really can't see him playing that part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 11:43
|
|
|
Green Vulture posted:That's correct. But it should be noted that Steven Soderbergh approached Douglas for the part in the first place, but Douglas passed because he thought his character wasn't written very well and was underdeveloped. So then Soderbergh was approached by Ford, who was looking to shake up his image. But he also had the same concerns as Douglas, and worked with Soderbergh to better develop the character (a couple of scenes in the film involving Douglas exist solely due to Ford's suggestions and notes); but for whatever reason, he just dropped out, and almost completely torpedoed the film's financial backing in the process (Soderbergh has said he never really did get a reason from Ford). That's interesting; didn't know that. I'm glad it worked out the way it did then, 'cause I don't like Ford very much, but love Traffic. It was the first movie that made me realise that DVD might not be such a good thing after all; big difference between a theatre and a home viewing. I can't really get that lazy, lukewarm vibe at home; especially during the scenes in Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 12:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Green Vulture posted:In short: Brad Pitt signed onto a very dark film. Harrison Ford read the script and wanted significant changes made to the script before he would sign on (Pitt was already locked in at this point) and I believe he made more rewrite requests as shooting went on. Pitt was pissed off as the script was literally changing into something else entirely right before his eyes, wanted to walk and the studio said "Do that and we'll sue your rear end into oblivion." So Pitt reluctantly stayed on. Thanks! This stuff is really interesting to me. What are some other famous examples of feuding stars/writers/directors nearly torpedoing a film?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 20:29
|
|