|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 327 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 75 of 327:
| 
Jan 2 01:27 UTC 2003 |
I bet you're right!
|
furs
|
|
response 76 of 327:
|
Jan 2 02:14 UTC 2003 |
I went to see "Two Weeks Notice" with my mother in law. I probably
would have not gone to see it, but she wanted to and the guys wouldn't
go so being the trooper I am, I went. It was predictable, but fairly
entertaining.
|
jep
|
|
response 77 of 327:
|
Jan 2 02:50 UTC 2003 |
re #67: I don't look up the backgrounds of artists, actors, writers,
etc. as a rule. It happens that Polanski's crimes were widely
reported, and so I remember them, and so I have a tendency to be turned
off from interest in his work.
I generally don't know who directed the films I watch. I don't know
who directed the Lord of the Rings films, the Harry Potter films, or
most any movies I've seen. I got a copy of "Fiddler on the Roof", my
favorite musical, but don't know who made it. I don't know who made
the Godfather movies, the Blues Brothers movie, or any of my favorite
Disney movies. I don't know what a director does, or a producer. I'm
not interested in the process of making movies, I just watch some
movies and like some of what I watch.
Roman Polanski movies tend to be advertised as being made by Polanski,
so it's easy to avoid them. If I found out he made the Star Trek
movies that I liked, or "Ice Age" (which my son just watched tonight
and which I liked), I guess I'd have an interesting decision. I
probably wouldn't get rid of anything I already have, but I wouldn't be
inclined to buy or rent more of those movies.
This makes me equivalent to Stalin? Wow. I'd say if you believe that,
you have a tendency to hyperbolize.
|
senna
|
|
response 78 of 327:
|
Jan 2 03:34 UTC 2003 |
While both Star Trek and LOTR have produced explanations of why their enemy
(and, in Star Trek, friendly) beings so closely resemble the race of the main
protagonists, it's worth noting that LOTR"s reason is built into the backstory
and exists without a special effects budget to keep in mind. Star Trek came
up with its explanation late in TNG and used it as the focal point for one
episode, basically a late-arriving excuse for years of cash-strapped special
effects departments.
|
remmers
|
|
response 79 of 327:
|
Jan 2 10:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #77: Hm. It takes many hands to make a movie, but the director
is in most instances the primary "author", so I tend to pay attention
to who the directors are. For me, not knowing who directed the
Godfather films would be akin to not knowing who wrote "A Tale of
Two Cities" or "The Stand". If I learn that a particular movie was
directed by David Lynch, John Dahl, Spike Jonze, Roman Polanski, or
Martin Scorsese (just to name a few examples), then I'll probably
go to see it. This is not to say that every movie made by those
directors is automatically good, but I've learned that the director's
name is a better indicator of whether I'll like a film or not than,
say, what the critics think of it.
For a discussion of "film director as author", and why the role of
film director is different from that of a stage director, see
http://www.moderntimes.com/palace/director.htm .
|
russ
|
|
response 80 of 327:
|
Jan 2 11:13 UTC 2003 |
Re #72: To demoralize orcs, you give them dirty magazines. This is
best done with a catapult specialized for lobbing pornography into
the enemy camp, known as the "arbalust".
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 81 of 327:
|
Jan 2 15:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mxyzptlk
|
|
response 82 of 327:
|
Jan 3 13:03 UTC 2003 |
Re: #78: The Trek explanation actually goes back to the original
series, which talks about "The Preservers" seeding the galaxy. They
also had "Hodgkin's Law of Parallel Planet Development".
|
krj
|
|
response 83 of 327:
|
Jan 5 04:52 UTC 2003 |
"Die Another Day:" No doubt my initial reaction is a little over
enthusiastic...
The first hour is the best hour of James Bond film ever, with
development and plotting that we've never seen in the series
before. After that it gets a bit silly, especially when the
invisible car comes in, but overall I think it's the
best Bond film in 30 years.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 84 of 327:
|
Jan 5 06:58 UTC 2003 |
It motivated me and Lisa to rent some of the earlier Bond flicks (on DVD,
they're especially cool because they have documentaries and commentary).
Violations of physical laws are part of the genre, so the invisible car isn't
really out of line.
|
void
|
|
response 85 of 327:
|
Jan 5 10:23 UTC 2003 |
What's the pseudonym used by directors who either don't want to
admit they made a film or want their name removed from the credits?
|
remmers
|
|
response 86 of 327:
|
Jan 5 11:16 UTC 2003 |
Alan Smithee
|
mary
|
|
response 87 of 327:
|
Jan 5 13:54 UTC 2003 |
Over the holiday break I was able to get caught up
on recent releases.
Adaptations: Another brilliant example of blending
fact and fiction so well it's hard to tell the
boundaries. But maybe that's the point.
LOTRTT: Mostly for those who like cars blowing up
but on a grand scale with lots of chainmail.
Catch Me If You Can: A fairly subtle touch for
a Spielberg film. And the best part is it's all
true.
About Schmidt: I liked it but suspect it will not
do well at the box office. Not once word gets
out it's a fairy slow character piece that gets
its humor from being searingly honest about dull
lives.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 88 of 327:
|
Jan 5 15:15 UTC 2003 |
(Actually, Catch Me If You Can is based on a true story, but it takes a number
of liberties with the truth. http://www.abagnale.com/facomments.html .)
|
mary
|
|
response 89 of 327:
|
Jan 5 16:59 UTC 2003 |
I suspect one "addition" is the scene where Abagnale looks
though the window at the family life he never had. That's sappy
enought to be pure Spielberg.
|
mary
|
|
response 90 of 327:
|
Jan 5 17:00 UTC 2003 |
s/through/though and enough/enought
I really should proofread.
|
slynne
|
|
response 91 of 327:
|
Jan 5 18:55 UTC 2003 |
I havent seen the movie but I just finished reading the book. My copy
has a nice interview with him about the movie. He does say that he
would have rather his parents didnt divorce but he doesnt put a lot of
emphasis on that.
Anyhow, it is a really good read.
|
remmers
|
|
response 92 of 327:
|
Jan 5 19:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #89: Indeed. If I hadn't known it was a Spielberg movie, I
probably would have guessed it at that point.
|
other
|
|
response 93 of 327:
|
Jan 5 20:12 UTC 2003 |
re #85-86: I believe it is Allan Smithee (two 'l's)
|
jep
|
|
response 94 of 327:
|
Jan 6 00:48 UTC 2003 |
I remember when the book came out, 20 years ago, and Abagnale was on
the Tonight Show. He was telling all these stories about how he fooled
people into thinking he was an airline pilot, then a surgeon. The
audience was eating it up. Johnny Carson had the presence to say "Wait
a minute..." Those were some pretty important positions he spoofed.
|
janc
|
|
response 95 of 327:
|
Jan 6 03:07 UTC 2003 |
The Internet Movie Database has entries for both "Allan Smithee" and
"Alan Smithe". Two-L Smithee seems to have been cinematographer on a
couple German films. One-L Smithee's biography starts like this:
Born in 1967, the same year he directed his first picture, Death of a
Gunfighter (released 1969). Restricted by Directors Guild of America
rules to certain "genres" of film, i.e., those on which the other
directors have functioned, but from which they wish to be disassociated.
Gained strong reviews for his initial film: "Sharply directed by Allen
Smithee [who] has an adroit facility for scanning faces and extracting
sharp background detail", (New York Times); "Smithee's direction keeps
the action taut and he draws convincing portrayals from [the] supporting
cast", (Variety). His oeuvre extends over a wide range of topics and
styles, usually with only one unifying factor between projects: the
refusal of other directors to put their name to the work.
More informatively, but less humorously:
The Directors Guild contract generally does not permit a director to
remove her/his name from films. The Directors Guild has been striving
for decades to establish the director as the "author" of a film, and
part of getting the credit for the successes is taking the blame for the
failures. The only exceptions they make are cases in which a film was
clearly taken away from a director and recut heavily against her/his
wishes in ways that completely altered the film. Directors are required
to appeal to the Guild in such cases. If the appeal is successful, their
name is replaced by Alan Smithee. That is the only permissible pseudonym
for a director. So if you notice a film directed by Alan Smithee, it is
certain it is not what its director intended, and likely that it is not
any good.
I'm starting to pay more attention to directors in my old age. This was
partly inspired by the fact that one day I noticed that several of my
all time favorite films were all directed by the same person ("Romancing
the Stone", "Back to the Future", "Contact") as were a number of other
films that were certainly worth watching ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit",
"Forrest Gump", "Castaway"). Here it turns out I'm a fan of I guy I
never heard of. His next film is apparantly going to be "The Polar
Express".
|
scott
|
|
response 96 of 327:
|
Jan 6 06:00 UTC 2003 |
http://www.smitheeawards.com
|
richard
|
|
response 97 of 327:
|
Jan 6 08:34 UTC 2003 |
Read an article about "Catch me if you Can" In the movie, Spielberg more
or less portrays Abagnale's acts as him being in denial about his parents
divorce, thinking that if he made something of himself, and got his dad's
money and prestige back, maybe his mom and dad wouldn't divorce. This is pure
Spielberg, as he has admitted that a lot of his movies-- particularly E.T.
but also Close Encounters and A.I. and others, deal with the divorce theme,
because his own parents divorce was particularly painful to him.
But Abagnale in the article denies his parents divorce had anything to do with
his acts. "Hell, I just did it to get girls, thats all" It is pure hollywood
to take the lead character's actions and somehow try to make them seem more
noble. Case in point was the movie of Grisham's "The Firm" If you read the
book, you know that it ends with the main character having stolen the
money from the crooks and living the rest of his life on the run on the high
seas. But in the movie "The Firm", they completely changed the ending.
They created a scene where Tom Cruise's character actually goes and negotiates
with the bad guys for his freedom. And it ends with he and his wife leaving
in their old car to go back up north and be idealistic again. It is typical
hollywood to take the ending of a perfectly good book and ruin it simply
because they want the lead character to come across as more wholesome.
|
jep
|
|
response 98 of 327:
|
Jan 6 14:24 UTC 2003 |
"The Firm" is a book with a *lousy* ending. The movie version was a
big improvement.
|
lynne
|
|
response 99 of 327:
|
Jan 6 22:37 UTC 2003 |
Both movie and book endings for "The Firm" totally sucked. I think this is
a frequent Grisham theme--books that are fine until about 75% of the way
through, and then cease to be good for anything but the recycle bin.
|
