The Bland Side
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Well, true stories rarely, if ever, make a good movie in my eyes. There are so few interesting true stories out there, and when a film is based off of one, it tends to just be "inspirational".
Good read. Wasn't expecting this today.
Good read. Wasn't expecting this today.
I've had a sudden idea while reading page two.
What if we made the same movie; only this time, it was a rich balck family and a poor white athlete. We could pass it off as 'defying the formula' and 'revolutionary' and we'd make oodles of money!
What if we made the same movie; only this time, it was a rich balck family and a poor white athlete. We could pass it off as 'defying the formula' and 'revolutionary' and we'd make oodles of money!
Well, if I wasn't going to see it then, I'm certainly not going to see it now. Thanks for the heads up.
That sounds like a great idea! I'll gladly help out with that film!stonethered said:
Don't forget the American "Battle Royale" remake.Cousin_IT said:
I think that true stories can make excellent movies, but they demand a different type of presentation. If it's fiction, make it all up, show whatever you want, and revel in the fact that you can show anything you want. If it's fact, acknowledge the reality that you don't know the whole story and you never will, and give the audience the information they need to piece a story together.Onyx Oblivion said:
I know! I learned something from this article just now! (Namely, that films can appear to acknowledge criticism but actually avoid doing so by making stealth ad hominem attacks) You have to warn a guy that this thing might happen!Nimbus said:
Akira too? Really? But America embraced Akira with open arms when it was released there (kinda... sorta... well not really, but it was eventually accepted). Akira is almost completely responsible for the current anime and otaku and pretty much everything Japanese-related in North America (you be the judge as to whether this is a good or bad thing), why the hell does it need a remake? Ugh, I'm really starting to hate being a fan of cinema. Why not just go all the way and start remaking classic movies like The Wizard of Oz or Harvey (oh [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910812/] wait [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1484986/]).Furburt said:
Fantastic; I love reading your articles.
One question: Have you ever seen a John Waters flick? Because back in the 70s, he was pretty much the polar opposite of the "Golden Age" filmmaking that you described, yet he was actually pretty popular in a certain niche.
One question: Have you ever seen a John Waters flick? Because back in the 70s, he was pretty much the polar opposite of the "Golden Age" filmmaking that you described, yet he was actually pretty popular in a certain niche.
Very good article. Except for the idiotic Transformers mention. Yes. You're cool for not liking Transformers. Shut up about it. It came out five months ago.
I'm sorry you had to sit through a very bland movie.
I'm sure it was a very boring movie, however if you'd have read the book, you might not have exactly the same criticism because it sounds they were quite faithful to it. And reading the book, you might understand why the same story is impossible to tell from Oher's side.
But yeah, sounds like they went for the boring 99.99% safety on that one.
I'm sure it was a very boring movie, however if you'd have read the book, you might not have exactly the same criticism because it sounds they were quite faithful to it. And reading the book, you might understand why the same story is impossible to tell from Oher's side.
But yeah, sounds like they went for the boring 99.99% safety on that one.
The only reason i would go to see this movie in the first place is that he plays for my home team now. go Bawlmur ravens, hon!
EDIT: oh, and did i mention John Waters is from Baltimore too? hmm...
EDIT: oh, and did i mention John Waters is from Baltimore too? hmm...
In no particular order:
("Thank you. The Exorcist claims to have been inspired by many different real cases, but not one "real" one. It is mostly made up." For those of us who don't speak Italian... like me, who used a site for that
)
Doesn't happen. Only time it gets close is when the writer has some sort of personal "in" with the director or producer; or when the writer is ALSO the director. "Auteur Theory" was 'invented' in the mid-50s by French film buffs running a news magazine called "Cahiers Du Cinema," and their intent was grounded in the belief that for film to be taken seriously as an art form someone needed to assign a single ultimate author to a film (in the same way that a painting only has one painter, a sculpture has one sculptor, etc.) But it took hold and managed to stick-around because it's essentially true: Most of the time, the vast majority of what "happens" in a film is the on-set decision of a director.
The fact of the matter is, the screenplay is basically the larval state of the movie - even if they don't change a THING in the script, stuff is going to change either while shooting it because "shit happens" or editing it because something doesn't "work" at the end. Perfect example: Steven Spielberg (as producer) optioned Alan Ball's script for American Beauty and famously said "don't change a thing." But once they'd shot the movie, the director (Sam Mendes) later realized that HUGE part of that script - a "framing" story about two characters being framed for murder that took up the original beginning and ending of the movie - just didn't "work." So he cut it all out.
Vi ringraziamo. L'esorcista sostiene di essere stati ispirati da molti e diversi casi reali, ma non una "reale." Esso è prevalentemente composto.Rudeboy4360 said:
("Thank you. The Exorcist claims to have been inspired by many different real cases, but not one "real" one. It is mostly made up." For those of us who don't speak Italian... like me, who used a site for that
)NopeNimbus said:
Doesn't happen. Only time it gets close is when the writer has some sort of personal "in" with the director or producer; or when the writer is ALSO the director. "Auteur Theory" was 'invented' in the mid-50s by French film buffs running a news magazine called "Cahiers Du Cinema," and their intent was grounded in the belief that for film to be taken seriously as an art form someone needed to assign a single ultimate author to a film (in the same way that a painting only has one painter, a sculpture has one sculptor, etc.) But it took hold and managed to stick-around because it's essentially true: Most of the time, the vast majority of what "happens" in a film is the on-set decision of a director.The fact of the matter is, the screenplay is basically the larval state of the movie - even if they don't change a THING in the script, stuff is going to change either while shooting it because "shit happens" or editing it because something doesn't "work" at the end. Perfect example: Steven Spielberg (as producer) optioned Alan Ball's script for American Beauty and famously said "don't change a thing." But once they'd shot the movie, the director (Sam Mendes) later realized that HUGE part of that script - a "framing" story about two characters being framed for murder that took up the original beginning and ending of the movie - just didn't "work." So he cut it all out.
Warner Bros. has owned the rights to make a live-action movie based on the original "Akira" manga for about 20 years now, and has tried to make it three or four times - each time eventually petering-out. There was a period in the late 90s and early 00s when "live action anime remakes" was assumed to be the "next big trend" and producers were buying projects left and right, everything from "Vampire Hunter D" to "Mazinger Z" (James Cameron still owns that one, plus four or five others)... someone was actually pretty far along on "Sailor Moon," if you can believe that. Eventually it petered out, the wave never materialized and the only project to limp to the finish line was "Dragonball" last year.Furburt said:
Love John Waters, and yeah he's pretty far outside any of the paradigms described here. He and the guys at Troma are some of the only people working so seperate from either the indie scene or the studios as to not fit into any of the generational "eras."RebelRising said:
Hey Bob, do you think there's a way to make corny/cheesy dialogue like the bits you mentioned work?
When I watch the dubbed version of an anime, or even watch it with subtitles, I expect the dialogue to be hit or miss sometimes. For example, I just watched the episode of an anime that features a 5 min monologue of a girl pouring her heart out to a guy in his sleep. Yeah, it was corny, but I didn't mind since I liked her character so much and I knew that kind of stuff is part of the territory in anime. I know this is getting out of topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts on how, or if, that dialogue can work. I'm sure that it has something to do with the execution and the context, right?
When I watch the dubbed version of an anime, or even watch it with subtitles, I expect the dialogue to be hit or miss sometimes. For example, I just watched the episode of an anime that features a 5 min monologue of a girl pouring her heart out to a guy in his sleep. Yeah, it was corny, but I didn't mind since I liked her character so much and I knew that kind of stuff is part of the territory in anime. I know this is getting out of topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts on how, or if, that dialogue can work. I'm sure that it has something to do with the execution and the context, right?