The Movie Rant: Not Offensive, I Promise by HiroStone

You surely do like your rants, don't ya?

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 12:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HiroStone:
Lately a trend I’ve been seeing at the movies is the perception: Bigger is better. And while that might be true for many things, it’s not necessarily true with movies.

not a new trend, see Cleopatra (not the Torres show!).

Quote:
The one thing I hate about movies is how stylized it’s become, where the effects and action took priority over the story.....Really, the only movies I liked from his stable were Bad Boys 1 & 2,....However, everything else was just noise, explosions and MTV style quick cuts.

Okay. Did I miss taking my irony supplement this morning?

Quote:
And Rogue a sixteen-year-old waif?

Wasn't that the comic continuity - I recall Rogue was a young girl, and in fact all the X-Men were teenagers (Hell, Peter Parker's been 25-30 for the past 20 or so years)

Quote:
He should’ve asked for a lot more money; maybe then he could’ve done it justice.

Goes against your central argument - chucking money at the screen doesn't make a better film - Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions for example. What they should have done with X2, was put Stewart and McKellan in a small room and had one camera on them for two hours. Best parts of both movies were those two.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

Goes against your central argument - chucking money at the screen doesn't make a better film - Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions for example. What they should have done with X2, was put Stewart and McKellan in a small room and had one camera on them for two hours. Best parts of both movies were those two.

"I threw up on your bed"

I respectfully disagree. Pause-framming thru the scenes where Mystique changes from one shape to another was the highlight of the movie. That and watching Kelly Hu kick some ass was pretty damn good too.

A well made action flick with well-devised action and fight sequences can be quite enjoyable as well - sure the idiotic dialogue and the absence of plot will definitely throw me off. So as long as they staple a semi-plausible plot and tape together some ok transitions. I can definitely eat up the rest of the eye-candy.

So, X-men is definitely a thumbs-up, but going to have to give Ecks vs. ? a crappola and BadBoyz and so-so.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 12:33 PM

GUNRUNNER

I agree with some of what your saying, I've been really disappointed with recent movies, the only movies from the past few years I liked were K-19 The Widow maker, and The Sum of All Fears (minus Ben Aflack).
During the scene in X-Men 2 with the F-16s I believe I either yelled, "Switch to Twenty Mike Mike (20MM Cannon) you Air Force idiot!" or “Switch to boresight on your missiles!”

The scene near the end where Magneto pulls the solder's grenade pins had me really disappointed with the writing, don't they know real solders put tape on the grenade’s leaver so an accidental pin pull doesn’t kill you.
Personally I much rather watch a movie like Twelve O’clock High, or Das Boot over the newest big budget movie unfortunately there is a lot of people out there who don’t.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 12:47 PM

GHOULMAN

I liked your last thread Hiro. People always start to argue the 'perifery' of the point and threads degenerate. I hope my flip yet insighful hyperbole doesn't faze ya.

And I like this post too. Nothing to add, good rant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

not a new trend, see Cleopatra (not the Torres show!).

What I meant by the "new trend" was the following of the "Titanic" mentality of the studios nowadays; i.e. The more money we spend on it, the bigger the box office. I knew about Cleopatra, but the trend has been lately with the Matrix sequels, The Hulk, T3, stuff like that.

Quote:
Quote:
And Rogue a sixteen-year-old waif?

Wasn't that the comic continuity - I recall Rogue was a young girl, and in fact all the X-Men were teenagers (Hell, Peter Parker's been 25-30 for the past 20 or so years)

James Bond has been perpetually 30-40-ish since the 1960's as well. Rogue was a young runaway in the comic book. She joined up with Mystique and her Brotherhood. But when Rogue became one of the new X-Men team, she was about in her mid-20's, the same as most of the X-Men. Plus, she was never a protégée of Wolverine. It just annoyed me how painfully whiny she was in the movies, compared to how she is in the comic.

Quote:
Quote:
He should’ve asked for a lot more money; maybe then he could’ve done it justice.

Goes against your central argument - chucking money at the screen doesn't make a better film - Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions for example. What they should have done with X2, was put Stewart and McKellan in a small room and had one camera on them for two hours. Best parts of both movies were those two.

What I meant was Bryan Singer could’ve done more if he’d spent the money right (or Joss Whedon's script...). And while Stewart and McKellan were the bright spots in the film, a small room with one camera with just the two of them . . . doing what exactly?

And I do like action movies. But I don't like movies that has alot of action, but no substance. They're just empty, devoid of anything but just fluff and FX.

Maybe because I've been a comic book fan of the X-Men for so long I'm too biased. They took Kelly Hu's character of Lady Deathstrike, which was a very intricate character, and just turned her into an automaton. That's one of the things that bothered me. And as much as I like Rebecca Romjin-Stamos almost naked as well, Mystique is a very complex character they only touched on briefly as she bonded with Nightcrawler. There should've been more to it overall.

Still can't think of anything. Insert Quote Here.

-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HiroStone:

... ... ...

And while Stewart and McKellan were the bright spots in the film, a small room with one camera with just the two of them . . . doing what exactly?

-Hiro

Chick-a-bow-bow... chick-a-bow-wow...

oh wait, day dreaming about blue porn again. Bald-headed men are soooo sexy..

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:30 PM

There are also exceptions to the rule as well, look at the stuff that Robert Rodriguez does. It's all digital, reasonably cheap, quick, and makes big ticket money both in the boxoffice and DVD releases.

The examples that you gave were all either movies with a demonstrated francise history (yes, formulaic, but the public has a love/hate relationship with the formula movies) and/or by big name directors with a history of making big money for the studio. There is an incentive from the studio's POV to allow these people to spend the requisite money to draw in the crowd.

I doubt that the studios and the infinite stupidity would gamble big $$$ on no names - we can all debate on the good and the bad of that too....

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

There are also exceptions to the rule as well, look at the stuff that Robert Rodriguez does. It's all digital, reasonably cheap, quick, and makes big ticket money both in the boxoffice and DVD releases.

Very true. I also neglected to mention sleeper/low budget hits like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Blair Witch, Pulp Fiction, Memento, etc.

Also very true about the big names. But now that unknown names have done well as they've created a new kind of hype or a new way to do a genre, indies are getting more play in the $$$ field.

Snoochie-boochies!

-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:52 PM

LTNOWIS

While I understand the problems everyone had with X-men and X-2, I think we all agree they could have been a lot worse. Anyways, nice rant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:52 PM

This is frickin hilarious. It also explains the bigger money, bigger money deal...

http://www.theonion.com/opinion.php?i=1&o=1

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 23, 2004 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
While I understand the problems everyone had with X-men and X-2, I think we all agree they could have been a lot worse. Anyways, nice rant.

Yeah, it could've been directed by Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay. Or worse yet, Joel Schumacher, the guy directed Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. I won't even comment, I'll let those titles stand as their own statement.

Or it could be even worse: Nicolas Cage could be playing Superman!

-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:10 AM

TJ63

"What they should have done with X2, was put Stewart and McKellan in a small room and had one camera on them for two hours. Best parts of both movies were those two. "

It makes me proud to be English! And of course, I HAVE to agree with you!

TJ

"Best not be taking it as a suggestion"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:19 AM

KALATHENA

Hiro, I couldn't agree with you more about the Hollywood assumption that "bigger is better". Unfortunately, this attitude is not limited to Hollywood movie making. It is endemic of American society as a whole.

One of the soon to come best examples of the idiocy of Hollywood's Bigger = Better will be EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING. The NY TIMES had a long-awaited article about the troubles of this film the other day and they all relate to one thing: The original director didn't make is "scary" or "big" enough.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/movies/22HOLS.html

Even my husband, who is writing the novelization, was unaware of most of what this article reports. Granted, I trust news sources about as much as I trust telemarketers, but at least this helps explain why he got only 20 pages of original script for the re-writes he was supposed to do.

--Kala

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:40 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

Hiro wrote:

Quote:
What I meant by the "new trend" was the following of the "Titanic" mentality of the studios nowadays; i.e. The more money we spend on it, the bigger the box office. I knew about Cleopatra, but the trend has been lately with the Matrix sequels, The Hulk, T3, stuff like that.

The missing part of this puzzle is the target audience of these movies. You have to remember that a fair portion of America likes "reality" shows and similar entertainment. Movies w/ little in the way of plot, but lots of glitz and glamour are going to be what sells tickets. Look at T3, the Matrix movies, and Episodes 1 & 2 of Star Wars. Movie goers have shown Hollywood that big explosions and special effects sell movie tickets.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good action movie, and I enjoyed X Men & X2, but I went with the expectation that they are action flix and will not have deep plots, but will be action films and enjoyable in their own rights.

Quote:
James Bond has been perpetually 30-40-ish since the 1960's as well. Rogue was a young runaway in the comic book. She joined up with Mystique and her Brotherhood. But when Rogue became one of the new X-Men team, she was about in her mid-20's, the same as most of the X-Men. Plus, she was never a protégée of Wolverine. It just annoyed me how painfully whiny she was in the movies, compared to how she is in the comic.

It has been a couple of years since I followed X-Men closely, but Rogue was a teen when she signed on with the X-Men after breaking away from Mystique and the Brotherhood; I would say around 18 or 19. She is still young now, perhaps early to mid 20s.

I didn't like how the movie put Rogue in the sidekick role w/ Wolverine. Shadowcat was Wolvie's first protégée, Jubilee was his second.

They did script Rogue as kind of whiny and annoying in the movie.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by KALATHENA:
Hiro, I couldn't agree with you more about the Hollywood assumption that "bigger is better". Unfortunately, this attitude is not limited to Hollywood movie making. It is endemic of American society as a whole.

That's true. SUVs, Hummers, Monster Trucks, Super Size meals, Big Gulp, The Pontiac Silverdome... Super Millionaire, Super Jackpot Lotteries, WB's Big Saturday or Sunday, Super Bowl, Super Sunday, Super Tuesday; "Mega" and "Super" are really overused in our society.

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Hiro wrote:

Quote:
What I meant by the "new trend" was the following of the "Titanic" mentality of the studios nowadays; i.e. The more money we spend on it, the bigger the box office. I knew about Cleopatra, but the trend has been lately with the Matrix sequels, The Hulk, T3, stuff like that.

The missing part of this puzzle is the target audience of these movies. You have to remember that a fair portion of America likes "reality" shows and similar entertainment. Movies w/ little in the way of plot, but lots of glitz and glamour are going to be what sells tickets.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good action movie, and I enjoyed X Men & X2, but I went with the expectation that they are action flix and will not have deep plots, but will be action films and enjoyable in their own rights.

Yeah, I can acknowledge that. I'm not expecting Shakespeare (well, maybe from Patrick Stewart!) from action movies. But to me all the trends lately when they sacrifice plot and story to add in one more fight sequence or CGI FX just adds to the "dumbing down" of an audience. Sure, it's escapism and sometimes you don't want to really think hard about over complicated plots (i.e. Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions), but some of these action movies just insulting. That's why I absolutely refused to see The Fast & the Furious, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Biker Boyz, Torque, etc.

The reality arguement doesn't hold water to me either. After they tried to hit on that genre with "The Real Cancun." Movies, in my opinion, is a way to escape reality. Why pay $7-8 bucks to see reality movies when you can watch reality TV basically for free?

And the target audience for Hollywood is the young audience. That's why action movies shoot for a PG-13 instead of R ratings. So parents can take their kids to the movies.

Quote:

It has been a couple of years since I followed X-Men closely, but Rogue was a teen when she signed on with the X-Men after breaking away from Mystique and the Brotherhood; I would say around 18 or 19. She is still young now, perhaps early to mid 20s.

I didn't like how the movie put Rogue in the sidekick role w/ Wolverine. Shadowcat was Wolvie's first protégée, Jubilee was his second.

They did script Rogue as kind of whiny and annoying in the movie.

Well, they've used Kitty Pryde as the newbie before in that X-Men one shot cartoon (you know where Wolverine had an Australian accent; ironic, with Hugh Jackman now, huh?) And Kitty was the first young teenage recruit they had since the original X-Men (well, maybe other than Colossus and Thunderbird, but they were older, I think). And Jubilee was also used as the newbie in the X-Men on FOX. But I still don't see how Rogue was at the top of the list to play the newbie of the X-Men.

My own personal opinion (which is probably biased since I'm Asian-American) is that Jubilee should've been the newbie. Besides I don't see how Kitty's phasing power would've gone into the plot (which was thread thin to begin with).

I was just put off that Rogue who had evolved to such a complex character was reduced to a damsel in distress. I just like to envision a teenage Rogue like she was in X-Men: Evolution, a fighter but vulnerable.

Okay, I got a good one:

Book: Did you ever read the works of Shan Yu?

Simon: Isn't that required reading for a FOX executive?

-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:43 PM

Quote:
James Bond has been perpetually 30-40-ish since the 1960's as well. Rogue was a young runaway in the comic book. She joined up with Mystique and her Brotherhood. But when Rogue became one of the new X-Men team, she was about in her mid-20's, the same as most of the X-Men. Plus, she was never a protégée of Wolverine. It just annoyed me how painfully whiny she was in the movies, compared to how she is in the comic.

Can't comment in that detail on the comic, but in the main in the movie they were clearly casting towards the young end (save Jean Grey who was clearly cradle snatching with Scott!). I thought the Rogue/Wolverine relationship was one of the strong points in the comic - and Rogue's movie persona was on an arc (she is much stronger in X2 having gained confidence in her powers).

Have to say I always thought of Rogue as a teenager (I recall her and the X-Men taking on Juggernaut, and she absorbed his powers - when I look back in my minds eye at the comic frames - someone threw away my collection! - I see her as a young girl).

Quote:
What I meant was Bryan Singer could’ve done more if he’d spent the money right (or Joss Whedon's script...). And while Stewart and McKellan were the bright spots in the film, a small room with one camera with just the two of them . . . doing what exactly?

Wash your mind out

The strongest scene in X2 was the scene in the cell - McKellan was acting on so many levels. They wasted Stewart in X2.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:00 PM

SAMURAIX47

Maybe in a perfect world we can hope for an awesome Firefly movie that hits big. Then let Joss Whedon write and direct the next X-men movies too.

Jaymes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SamuraiX47:
Maybe in a perfect world we can hope for an awesome Firefly movie that hits big. Then let Joss Whedon write and direct the next X-men movies too.
Jaymes

Hey, if they are talking about Sean Astin to direct The Fantastic Four, anything is possible (before anyone lights the flames - I merely mean he doesn't have a track record beyond a few TV episodes as far as I'm aware)

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:

Can't comment in that detail on the comic, but in the main in the movie they were clearly casting towards the young end (save Jean Grey who was clearly cradle snatching with Scott!). I thought the Rogue/Wolverine relationship was one of the strong points in the comic - and Rogue's movie persona was on an arc (she is much stronger in X2 having gained confidence in her powers).

Have to say I always thought of Rogue as a teenager (I recall her and the X-Men taking on Juggernaut, and she absorbed his powers - when I look back in my minds eye at the comic frames - someone threw away my collection! - I see her as a young girl).

They wasted Stewart in X2.

I do admit that Rogue was stronger in X2. They didn't have to bother with much exposition though. I just can't help but be very biased against the X-Men movies because I have been a strong fan of the comic for years. It still bothers me that she was portrayed as the young newbie. I don't know if Wolverine and Rogue showed a strong bond in the comic as I didn't start reading until the late 80's, well after she'd join the X-Men. But I seriously doubt that Rogue was ever mentored by Wolverine. She doesn't seem the type.

And they were gearing toward the younger audience, but for the studios the movie meant one thing: FRANCHISE! MONEY! $$$$$$$$ to be made and lots of it. Kids want the action figures, the Happy Meals, etc. Hollywood saw Blade hit it at the box office from a virtually unknown comic book character, then thought that superstar comic book characters would be a blockbuster.

As well, I am a huge fan of Spider-Man, and there were some things I was nitpicky about the movie. However, that lived up to all my expectations. Maybe because Sam Raimi was a real comic book fan, reading Spidey since he was a teenager, and after fans had been waiting years for the movie to be made, he wanted it done right.

I just want the next X-Men and the new Batman to be made right; not to continue as just a franchise.

Jayne: ...the man they call....ME....!!!

-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2004 8:46 AM

GATORMARC

Do you really think the new Battlestar Gallactica kept the feel of the original?

I disagree. The new one attempted to be much grander than the original show and failed miserably due to poor writing. Even some good actors came across poorly because of how bad the writing was.

I had so much hope when I first heard about it... now it just looks like a massive money pit, money that could have been spent on something well written like Firefly.

GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2004 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GatorMarc:
Do you really think the new Battlestar Gallactica kept the feel of the original?

I disagree. The new one attempted to be much grander than the original show and failed miserably due to poor writing. Even some good actors came across poorly because of how bad the writing was.

I had so much hope when I first heard about it... now it just looks like a massive money pit, money that could have been spent on something well written like Firefly.

GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.

I agree, there were some things that were a bit over the top and too epic for my taste. The writing indeed needed polishing up. Still, I feel it was much much better than alot of the other "remakes" of other shows. Besides, Battlestar Galactica had to sum up in a mini-series the mythos the original show did for a season.

The important thing is that with the other fans I've talked to and some of the newer ones that have just seen the original episodes on Sci-Fi Channel, they genuinely liked it and it did very well. Which is a very big boost for sci-fi in general.

Jimmy James from Newsradio: University of Florida Gators RULE!!!!
(I just like that quote for some reason.)
-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2004 9:19 AM

GATORMARC

Quote:
Originally posted by HiroStone:

I agree, there were some things that were a bit over the top and too epic for my taste. The writing indeed needed polishing up. Still, I feel it was much much better than alot of the other "remakes" of other shows. Besides, Battlestar Galactica had to sum up in a mini-series the mythos the original show did for a season.

I guess the bar is set pretty low for remakes. It just seemed that they did much of what you've talked about here... put less effort in the writing, hoping that the special effects would bring them through.

I mean how bad of a writing staff does it take to resort to having Adama trapped with a cylon by some fluke explosion from manually moving top heavy explosives, and to write him off because they didn't have one man with a blowtorch and 15 minutes to get them out???

Quote:

The important thing is that with the other fans I've talked to and some of the newer ones that have just seen the original episodes on Sci-Fi Channel, they genuinely liked it and it did very well. Which is a very big boost for sci-fi in general.

I suppose... I knew some people who enjoyed it a lot and are looking forward to a series. I guess I see that Sci-Fi channel has a finite amount of money and some great writing has been either canned or never given a chance (Firefly, Babylon 5 sequels) while lesser shows are having money thrown at them.

Quote:

Jimmy James from Newsradio: University of Florida Gators RULE!!!!
(I just like that quote for some reason.)
-Hiro

Stephen Root is a Gator Alum.

GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 27, 2004 1:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GatorMarc:

Stephen Root is a Gator Alum.

GatorMarc

Eat 'em up, chomp, chomp.

Knew that.

-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:31 PM

ECMORGAN69

Quote:
Originally posted by HiroStone:
Very true. I also neglected to mention sleeper/low budget hits like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Blair Witch, Pulp Fiction, Memento, etc.

Also very true about the big names. But now that unknown names have done well as they've created a new kind of hype or a new way to do a genre, indies are getting more play in the $$$ field.

Snoochie-boochies!

-Hiro

Just one thing. Dumbass movies like "The Blair Witch Project", "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", and well, I could go on, make a zillion dollars for a reason besides quality, good script, fine acting, etc. They make a zillion dollars at the box office because of that noncorporeal thing called "buzz". "The Blair Witch Project" had all kinds of "buzz", not to mention the fact that it cost less to make than "Clerks", an infintiely better movie IMHO. The moviemker drones create this "buzz" with the Hollywood J.O.s and their PR flacks, and before you know it, you have a movie that made a zillion dollars, all without a coherent plotline, decent acting, etc. (i.e. "Daredevil", "Titanic", other two-dimensional movies...)

So, in conclusion, I hope a band of ravenous reavers catch up to the Hollywood J.O.s before they defile the "Firefly" movie before it's even done

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:39 PM

ECMORGAN69

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

This is frickin hilarious. It also explains the bigger money, bigger money deal...

http://www.theonion.com/opinion.php?i=1&o=1

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is a funny little article. Definitely deserves a bump. Hey, could I play goalie? Sure, it's been a few years, but I think I could put a couple of those little foreign bastards in the hospital before they could get a shot through the crease

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
Quote:
Originally posted by HiroStone:
Very true. I also neglected to mention sleeper/low budget hits like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, The Blair Witch, Pulp Fiction, Memento, etc.

Also very true about the big names. But now that unknown names have done well as they've created a new kind of hype or a new way to do a genre, indies are getting more play in the $$$ field.

Snoochie-boochies!

-Hiro

Just one thing. Dumbass movies like "The Blair Witch Project", "My Big Fat Greek Wedding", and well, I could go on, make a zillion dollars for a reason besides quality, good script, fine acting, etc. They make a zillion dollars at the box office because of that noncorporeal thing called "buzz". "The Blair Witch Project" had all kinds of "buzz", not to mention the fact that it cost less to make than "Clerks", an infintiely better movie IMHO. The moviemker drones create this "buzz" with the Hollywood J.O.s and their PR flacks, and before you know it, you have a movie that made a zillion dollars, all without a coherent plotline, decent acting, etc. (i.e. "Daredevil", "Titanic", other two-dimensional movies...)

So, in conclusion, I hope a band of ravenous reavers catch up to the Hollywood J.O.s before they defile the "Firefly" movie before it's even done

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

You guys better start whipping out your checkbook really fast. The movie execs run a company that has to make money for its investors, so unless if someone is willing to put up enough money to front the entire operation - including buying the film stock, processing, printing, all of the post production, CGI, marketing and distribution - there's going to be a problem with those same execs not putting a finger in it. They will demand a particular length of film, that it satisfy a particular audience category that they want to distribute it to, they will demand certain scenes be left in / taken out / rewritten to suit the rating/genre/audience/time of day, and they will determine the type of marketing, promotion, and release schedule.

and they will say whether there will be lunchboxes tie-in or not.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:51 PM

ECMORGAN69

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Hiro wrote:

Quote:
What I meant by the "new trend" was the following of the "Titanic" mentality of the studios nowadays; i.e. The more money we spend on it, the bigger the box office. I knew about Cleopatra, but the trend has been lately with the Matrix sequels, The Hulk, T3, stuff like that.

The missing part of this puzzle is the target audience of these movies. You have to remember that a fair portion of America likes "reality" shows and similar entertainment. Movies w/ little in the way of plot, but lots of glitz and glamour are going to be what sells tickets. Look at T3, the Matrix movies, and Episodes 1 & 2 of Star Wars. Movie goers have shown Hollywood that big explosions and special effects sell movie tickets.

Don't get me wrong, I like a good action movie, and I enjoyed X Men & X2, but I went with the expectation that they are action flix and will not have deep plots, but will be action films and enjoyable in their own rights.

Totally on the money, BC1. As a disaffected American movie-goer, I totally agree with you about American movie-goers. Most American movie-goers (i.e. reality-show fans) are ignorant, know-nothing sheep, without the thought processes necessary to come in out of the rain. These are the same people that, every November, negate my vote with their willful ignorance and unbridled stupidity. I just hope that the American sensibility desiring stupid movies (i.e. anything made by Joel Schumacher, any romantic comedy with Sandra Bullock, any movie based on a comic book, etc.) doesn't water down or desecrate any Firefly movie that Joss might make. I hope that Joss gets full control over the making of the Firefly movie so that the jing chang mei yong de movie executives don't botch it all up.

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2004 12:53 PM

LTNOWIS

[qutoe]Okay, I got a good one:

Book: Did you ever read the works of Shan Yu?

Simon: Isn't that required reading for a FOX executive?

-Hiro

Lol! :biggein: That's awesome.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:16 PM