|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 150 of 323:
| 
Jul 28 10:56 UTC 2004 |
Actually, if the Knights were Romanized Celts, they probably /did/ wear
shiny plate armour. And believe it or not (yes, I know, some of you
won't), some people thought some of the kings were worth avenging.
|
bru
|
|
response 151 of 323:
|
Jul 28 14:26 UTC 2004 |
not the kind of plate worn in First Knight, and what was with all the blue
in the clothing? And you can accept an american accent as a french knight
and a Scottish accent for Arthur in First Knight, but get all bent out by a
ma with a southren british accent in King Arthur?
Get real.
|
twenex
|
|
response 152 of 323:
|
Jul 28 19:23 UTC 2004 |
Gere and Connery are established actors, and if they can't get do them
to do the proper accents, they should at least get some of the minor
actors in the film to do 'em. Same with KING ARTHUR . Besides, it's
widely alleged that "Americans can't do British accents", and if that's
true (obviously not true in all cases, as Sam in LOTR is played by an
American actor - as I found out /after/ I saw FOTR) better a natural
American accent than a bad British one.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 153 of 323:
|
Jul 28 19:49 UTC 2004 |
Is it a British class-consciousness thing that makes you more concerned
with the accents than the plot? I know a bad accent can be distracting
(or worse -- unintentionally humorous) but is it really the thing you
think people will take away from watching the film?
|
twenex
|
|
response 154 of 323:
|
Jul 28 19:52 UTC 2004 |
This conversation may be more bothered about the accents than the plot, but
I'm not. And class doesn't come into regional accents, as people who talk with
a regional accent are more likely to have been born into (though not
necessarily stuck in) lower-class social circles. Like me, for instance.
|
scott
|
|
response 155 of 323:
|
Jul 28 20:27 UTC 2004 |
Re 153: Well, wouldn't you be distracted if, say, John Gotti was played with
a Southern drawl?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 156 of 323:
|
Jul 28 20:32 UTC 2004 |
It would make me think of a "Southern Don", which is a Godfather (scotch
and amaretto, served on the rocks) except that you use bourbon instead
of scotch.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 157 of 323:
|
Jul 28 20:54 UTC 2004 |
re #155: #153 explicitly recognizes that a bad accent choice can be
distracting (that was even the exact word I used.) But if the rest of
the movie was good I'm sure I'd get over it, and if the rest of the movie
was bad I'm equally sure I'd find other things to blame as well as the
accents.
|
scott
|
|
response 158 of 323:
|
Jul 28 22:45 UTC 2004 |
Just a little prod to see if I can get klg to come out of hiding: Michael
Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" has now passed the $100 million mark.
|
tod
|
|
response 159 of 323:
|
Jul 28 22:47 UTC 2004 |
I gave a private showing of F911 to my folks this weekend. We all agreed that
Moore is a funny man.
|
ric
|
|
response 160 of 323:
|
Jul 29 01:09 UTC 2004 |
I'd heard terrible things about King Arthur and decided to shun it.
I hope Michael Moore spends a lot of his $100 million helping to unseat
President Bush.
|
richard
|
|
response 161 of 323:
|
Jul 29 01:19 UTC 2004 |
Not only has Fahrenheit 9/11 passed $100 million, but the film only cost
$6 million to make and another $10 million to market, which means at this
point it is over $80 million in the black. As it is Michael Moore's
movie, you can figure that he owns a healthy percentage of the backend.
He's already promised to use the profits of this movie to defeat Bush,
although I'm sure he didn't dream it would do this well. So maybe he can
use some of the money on anti-Bush activities, and maybe give some back to
his hometown of Flint, which could probably use the money. Or maybe the
Michael Moore School of Film at UM-Flint :) Regardless of your
political views, every struggling documentary filmmaker will benefit from
the success of this movie, because Fahrenheit 9/11 has disproved a long
held myth-- that documentaries can't make money
.'
|
richard
|
|
response 162 of 323:
|
Jul 29 01:25 UTC 2004 |
And hopefully the fact that this film is going to turn at least $80 million
profit will lead to the ouster of that egomaniac head of Walt Disney Michael
Eisner. Eisner is such a brilliant businessman that he thought it wasn't
worth the studio's money to release a movie they paid to make. He was ready
to shelve the movie until the Weinsteins (Miramax heads) bought it. If I was
a Disney stockholder, I'd say it was time for Eisner to turn in his Mickey
Mouse ears
|
gull
|
|
response 163 of 323:
|
Jul 29 15:05 UTC 2004 |
I think you have to look at the big picture. If releasing the movie had
upset their friends in government, and made lobbying for future
legislation (like copyright extensions) more difficult, it would have
been a net loss for them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 164 of 323:
|
Jul 29 15:08 UTC 2004 |
So much for free speech.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 165 of 323:
|
Jul 29 15:26 UTC 2004 |
Free what?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 166 of 323:
|
Jul 29 15:40 UTC 2004 |
I don't find it too terribly troubling that companies looking for special
favors from government feel the need to engage in self-censorship. If
Al Queda had flown planes into the Magic Kingdom (and the office of
Senator Fritz Hollings) I wouldn't shed many tears.
|
ric
|
|
response 167 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:14 UTC 2004 |
re 164 - free speech has and has always HAD consequences.
As for planes crashing into Disney World, please don't. I enjoy going to
Epcot Center, and look forward to my daughters first trip to the Magic
Kingdom.
|
twenex
|
|
response 168 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:18 UTC 2004 |
It's not the same thing, though, is it?
The Founding Fathers did not say:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that companies are endowed by
their Creators with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these are
money, favours from government, and the unbounded pursuit of
greed...that to secure these rights, companies are free to avoid funding
controversial products, deriving their money from fleecing the governed..."
...did they?
|
twenex
|
|
response 169 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:30 UTC 2004 |
Re: #167. I'm not arguing against free speech, but against Disney limiting
it in exchange for favours from the Scumbag-in-Chief.
|
ric
|
|
response 170 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:43 UTC 2004 |
In what way did Disney limit free speech?
|
twenex
|
|
response 171 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:44 UTC 2004 |
They declined to release documentary. How were they to know someone else
would?
|
tod
|
|
response 172 of 323:
|
Jul 29 16:55 UTC 2004 |
They're entitled to choose their customers like any other business. I don't
care about Disney and never did. I'm GLAD Lion's Gate is going to make out
on this cuz they are going to make a ton of cool movies with that dough.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 173 of 323:
|
Jul 29 17:28 UTC 2004 |
Re #169, I believe the favors were from the Scumbag-in-Chief's brother.
|
twenex
|
|
response 174 of 323:
|
Jul 29 17:29 UTC 2004 |
Oh, well in that case it's perfectly acceptable! ;-P
|