Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheLastWolf

Watch Watched Watching: Indie Art Cinema Wave #__?

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, polishgenius said:


Why? We weren't talking about Heard. It wasn't Heard's career being discussed. I find it particularly interesting that you'd use such dishonest argument tactics to try to 'win' your point across though. 

Dishonest argument tactics?  That's funny coming from you. You just ignored everything else I said and zeroed in on that. Why? Because you don't have any rebuttal of anything else I've said?

But sure, let's ignore the double standards re: her career. What are your arguments, again? Let's focus on those.

You are arguing that Depp should be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent n order to save his career. Where would such a burden of proof exist?

It sure does not in criminal cases, it's the other way round.

Then you were arguing that the burden of proof was on Depp to prove that the Sun was not telling the truth, in his libel case. True. But what does that have to do with Depp's career or the public opinion about him? The burden of proof was on him because the purpose of a libel suit is not to exonerate or prove the guilt of the accusing party, it's to convict the accused party (The Sun) and make them pay a large sum of money.

Or is the public opinion you're referring to? You are arguing that a person needs to prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt in order to have a career or not be 'cancelled' or whatever? For starters, that's messed up, but secondly... just a moment later, you started telling me I don't have the right to make up my opinion on who was the victim and who was the abuser based on publicly available evidence, because we just can't know everything that happened? But it's OK to decide Depp is an abuser based on the same things even though we just ccan't know everything that happened, unless he proves the opposite beyond reasonable doubt?

You contract yourself. Make up your mind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

It sure does not in criminal cases, it's the other way round.

 

 

We're not talking about criminal cases. We're talking about the libel case and the effect it's had on Depp's career. There hasn't been a criminal case so we have no idea how one would go. But you're talking about it not being a criminal conviction and then going 'oh but Heard did it'. Come on. 

You're also ignoring that the judge saw evidence we haven't as part of making up his mind. 

11 minutes ago, Annara Snow said:

you started telling me I don't have the right to make up my opinion on who was the victim and who was the abuser based on publicly available evidence, because we just can't know everything that happened?

I don't care about what you do with your mind, but you seem to have decided what everyone else has to think too and steamed in really offended that I didn't agree. But you also decided I think Heard should skate so I guess that's just your thing. 

Edited by polishgenius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the first couple of episodes of Only Murders in the Building, which I think was better than I was expecting from the trailer. The trailer, perhaps understandably, focused on the comedy elements of the show but I think the murder mystery and the characters are more interesting than I thought they might have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, williamjm said:

I watched the first couple of episodes of Only Murders in the Building, which I think was better than I was expecting from the trailer. The trailer, perhaps understandably, focused on the comedy elements of the show but I think the murder mystery and the characters are more interesting than I thought they might have been.

I thought it was fantastic. Looking forward to more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow time for me as I was away on holiday, but I did manage to see the new Candyman. All in all it was a decidedly average film and cannot hold a candle against its predecessor. Sad really, because it started out very strong. The actors are good, the cinematography, set design and costumes are great and in the beginning the film can be genuinely thrilling.

They mess up big time near the end though. I felt like I was watching a version from which they had cut about half an hour from the runtime, so the film was building up rather nicely from A to B and then it should have been C, but they jumped to E straight away. Disappointing really, as it is yet again the screenplay that was the cause for this film's average. I cannot fathom how it is the cheapest and (normally first) element of the production process that is so often to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Veltigar said:

I cannot fathom how it is the cheapest and (normally first) element of the production process that is so often to blame.

This. With so many brilliant writers out there, the sheer number of dreadful scripts making it into production is unforgiveable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect many good scripts are butchered by producers and editors who need to make changes based on business directives ( make it shorter, make the ending more exciting etc)

Im sure most writers try to do a good job, but are often just not able. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I suspect many good scripts are butchered by producers and editors who need to make changes based on business directives ( make it shorter, make the ending more exciting etc)

Im sure most writers try to do a good job, but are often just not able. 

Yes. As much as executives get criticized, they generally are put at the helm where billions are at stake because they have a pretty keen sense of how to make the most out of something as variable and subjective as movies.

One look at the trailer of Candyman (and seeing Jordan Peele's name) made me think it would be a generic horror movie with some hamfisted attempt of tacking on a generic message about race to appeal to critics. But I imagine this kind of laziness has been identified as being the most profitable with respect to current audiences over something that might actually be good.

Edited by IFR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I suspect many good scripts are butchered by producers and editors who need to make changes based on business directives ( make it shorter, make the ending more exciting etc)

Im sure most writers try to do a good job, but are often just not able. 

I'd like to believe you and the suits certainly have the majority of the blame to claim since even if they didn't meddle directly by giving those kinds of instructions they did greenlit the bad script in the first place, I do however think that some of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of the screenwriters themselves and the cronyism that must enable idiots like Chris Terrio to flourish in the business. 

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

This. With so many brilliant writers out there, the sheer number of dreadful scripts making it into production is unforgiveable.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it this way. it's just a shame how often you can laud a film's VFX, cinematography and acting only for the film in its entirety being seen as something mediocre or awful even. 

3 hours ago, IFR said:

One look at the trailer of Candyman (and seeing Jordan Peele's name) made me think it would be a generic horror movie with some hamfisted attempt of tacking on a generic message about race to appeal to critics. But I imagine this kind of laziness has been identified as being the most profitable with respect to current audiences over something that might actually be good.

Hmm, I wouldn't say his films are generic horror movies per se. Get Out is a rather remarkable film and even 2019's Us, which is a terrible waste of time all together at least looked more stylish than the standard horror films rolling out of the Hollywood conveyor belt. Damning with faint praise perhaps, but at least he has that going for him.

Edited by Veltigar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Spockydog said:

This. With so many brilliant writers out there, the sheer number of dreadful scripts making it into production is unforgiveable.

 

Yup.

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I suspect many good scripts are butchered by producers and editors who need to make changes based on business directives ( make it shorter, make the ending more exciting etc)

Im sure most writers try to do a good job, but are often just not able. 

This.

8 hours ago, IFR said:

Yes. As much as executives get criticized, they generally are put at the helm where billions are at stake because they have a pretty keen sense of how to make the most out of something as variable and subjective as movies.

One look at the trailer of Candyman (and seeing Jordan Peele's name) made me think it would be a generic horror movie with some hamfisted attempt of tacking on a generic message about race to appeal to critics. But I imagine this kind of laziness has been identified as being the most profitable with respect to current audiences over something that might actually be good.

Very often not so keen. I'm recalling the recent Chris Terrio interview and the kettles of shit he's had to eat in recent years. I'm also recalling the utter lack of sympathy he received from the many in the moving pictures commentariat. 

Edited by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest though- you can't absolve directors of blame either. It's their film and they either need to not select a project if they can't make a good film out of it or have it polished until it works.

And there'll definitely be occasions- probably many- where the director changes the script in the course of shooting or editing, in small or big ways, and sometimes that'll fix issues but sometimes it'll spoil it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yeah. A Boy and His Dog. A low budget post apocalyptic film from the 1970's based on a Harlen Ellison novella, starring a baby faced Don Johnson. George Miller cited it as an influence for The Road Warrior.   

This thing is all kinds of bonkers. Being described as a black comedy and the somewhat clean, 1970's sci-fi Mise-en-scène notwithstanding, it's incredibly bleak. Also, depending on your POV, an incredibly misogynist film that was decried as such when it came out.   

At the beginning of the movie,

Spoiler

Our young hero is looking for a woman for sex. He finds one who has just been assaulted by marauders. I'm not sure if she's dead or dying when he finds her but he seems indifferent to it. He laments, "Hell, they didn't have to cut her. She could have been used three or four more times."

Don't do war, kids.

I'm not sure if it's in the public domain or not, but It's on YouTube. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Let's be honest though- you can't absolve directors of blame either. It's their film and they either need to not select a project if they can't make a good film out of it or have it polished until it works.

And there'll definitely be occasions- probably many- where the director changes the script in the course of shooting or editing, in small or big ways, and sometimes that'll fix issues but sometimes it'll spoil it.

Depends on the context. Is it a director driven film or production driven film? Is it a film by committee? Kubrick didn't take notes from anybody after Spartacus. Scorsese didn't test screen a film until GoodFellas. The praise or blame lies squarely on them.

On the other hand, David Fincher was so disgusted with the production of Alien 3 that he refuses to even acknowledge it today. I'm inclined to think everything good about that movie was because of him.

I would have loved to have seen what Iron Man 2 would have looked like if Jon Favreu had been left alone. 

Edited by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

So yeah. A Boy and His Dog. A low budget post apocalyptic film from the 1970's based on a Harlen Ellison novella, starring a baby faced Don Johnson. George Miller cited it as an influence for The Road Warrior.   

This thing is all kinds of bonkers. Being described as a black comedy and the somewhat clean, 1970's sci-fi Mise-en-scène notwithstanding, it's incredibly bleak. Also, depending on your POV, an incredibly misogynist film that was decried as such when it came out.   

At the beginning of the movie,

  Hide contents

Our young hero is looking for a woman for sex. He finds one who has just been assaulted by marauders. I'm not sure if she's dead or dying when he finds her but he seems indifferent to it. He laments, "Hell, they didn't have to cut her. She could have been used three or four more times."

Don't do war, kids.

I'm not sure if it's in the public domain or not, but It's on YouTube. 

Isn’t this the inspiration for the dog in fallout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Isn’t this the inspiration for the dog in fallout?

There's a youtube video about this. I'd link to it but it'd spoil the movie.

Yes, A Boy and His Dog has been incredibly influential in film and video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Depends on the context. Is it a director driven film or production driven film? Is it a film by committee? Kubrick didn't take notes from anybody after Spartacus. Scorsese didn't test screen a film until GoodFellas. The praise or blame lies squarely on them.

On the other hand, David Fincher was so disgusted with the production of Alien 3 that he refuses to even acknowledge it today. I'm inclined to think everything good about that movie was because of him.

I would have loved to have seen what Iron Man 2 would have looked like if Jon Favreu had been left alone. 

Case in point

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Boy and His Dog is ... a shaggy dog tale.  Ah-hem.  Which makes it all far worse somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Very often not so keen.

You say that, but I see generic Marvel movie after generic Marvel, and generic Star Wars movie after generic Star Wars movie, and generic Jurassic Park movie/Fast and Furious movie/name your franchise, etc., rake in billions of dollars every year. These are not insightful, mentally stimulating movies. Most of them have blatant plot holes that everyone making the movie are surely aware of, but don't care about because they know that aside from a negligible number of geeks, their audience won't care about.

The 70s, for example, was a time when highly original movies were being churned out. The box office was comparatively small then. Over the years, studios were able to create a huge industry of movies that regularly pull in hundreds of millions of dollars.

Aside from certain aberrations, people do not want good movies. And movie executives seem to have made an industry that ought to be incredibly risky and unpredictable into a fairly reliable money generator by understanding this and providing people what they seem to actually want to watch, regardless of their later complaints.

Edited by IFR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IFR said:

Aside from certain aberrations, people do not want good movies.

I think it would be more accurate to say people don't want complex movies. You'll get you Inceptions now and again that also do well at the box office, but the general audience wants something easy to digest and understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IFR said:

You say that, but I see generic Marvel movie after generic Marvel, and generic Star Wars movie after generic Star Wars movie, and generic Jurassic Park movie/Fast and Furious movie/name your franchise, etc., rake in billions of dollars every year. These are not insightful, mentally stimulating movies. Most of them have blatant plot holes that everyone making the movie are surely aware of, but don't care about because they know that aside from a negligible number of geeks, their audience won't care about.

They have their boondoggles as well. And I'm sure all these guys were scratching their heads at the profitability of something like Joker. Same for just about anything made by James Cameron. Just imagine how much more moneys they could have made if the suits could have gotten in there and given JC notes.

This gets into the dynamics of franchise films and established IP's. Alita: Battle Angel came out the same year as Captain Marvel. Alita is a far superior film IMO but it isn't part of a connected universe and didn't have the MCU momentum to drag it along. It more or less broke even at the box office while Captain Marvel made over a billion dollars. Or look at Spider-Man:Into the Spider-Verse compared to Far From Home. The former should have been one of the highest grossing films of the year; the latter is one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen. It was boring and nonsensical and the jokes didn't land and the high school field trip stuff was boring as shit. One of the worst Spider-Man movies ever. 

Star Wars has used up all of their mulligans. They've retreated to the safety of nostalgia. It'll be a gold mine. Fuck I hope Rebel Moon has lightsabers in it. :D

I don't know what propelled the recent Jurassic World movies beyond the IP. Is it Chris Pratt's star power? 

I have never seen a Fast+Furious movie. I should check them out.  

1 hour ago, IFR said:

The 70s, for example, was a time when highly original movies were being churned out. The box office was comparatively small then. Over the years, studios were able to create a huge industry of movies that regularly pull in hundreds of millions of dollars.

Adjusted for ticket price inflation, those 70's films are still some of the highest grossing movies of all time. And in the 1970's, foreign distribution was western  Europe, Japan, and Australia. The Chinese market didn't exist until about a decade ago (today one of the worlds largest markets for American films). nor did the Soviet Union or eastern Europe. Africa, India, and South America barely registered.

On the other hand, when Star Wars or Superman '78 came out, things like HBO were still pretty small and most people didn't even own a VCR yet. Literally the only way to see a film in its unedited, commercial-free form was to buy a movie ticket. So comparing box office numbers between then and now is dubious at best. 

However, the films that endure from that time are overwhelmingly director driven; even for films that were largely rejected by audiences at the time. That's not nothing when you consider merchandising and video sales. I'm sure Jaws and The Godfather still sell a few hundred thousand copies a year, be that streaming or physical media. 

1 hour ago, IFR said:

Aside from certain aberrations, people do not want good movies. And movie executives seem to have made an industry that ought to be incredibly risky and unpredictable into a fairly reliable money generator by understanding this and providing people what they seem to actually want to watch, regardless of their later complaints.

More or less. Enjoyable to watch but ultimately bland and forgettable is how I'd characterize a lot of this stuff. 

Although, despite the fact that revenues have gone up, box office ticket sales peaked in 2002 and have been declining ever since in North America. This was happening even before Covid. 

Edited by Deadlines? What Deadlines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...