C3PX

vote_for_palpatine said:

I've got a show I want to develop, C3PX. It's basically a bunch of slackers, working at something like a video game/toy/collectible shop, who exhaust every available resource in trying to not work. Customers are messed with time and time again, the district manager is treated to a dog and pony show with every visit, books are cooked to show that the store is profitable, and so on. All the while, employees just come in to fuck around, play with the toys at the store, and have their little episodic adventures. I happen to find lazy people funny, and lazy people making an effort to remain lazy is even funnier.

I don't know how to pitch a show or develop one, but if you or anyone else wants to help develop this idea, let me know.

The problem is that you really need to know, or at least be sleeping with someone to really get anywhere in the entertainment world. It is all about connections. You can imagine how many TV viewer decide since they enjoy watching movies and TV so much, they ought to give it a go themselves. The world is full of people with bad ideas, who just happen to think their ideas are absolutely brilliant. So I can only really begin to imagine what it is like to be in the position to have to sift through every submission while looking for the rare gem. Really the first step to getting any of your work looked at is to have a decent agent representing you, which isn't really all that easy.

It is no exaggeration that we are in some very serious need of decent comedies on TV. I am constantly stunned when I turn on the TV and flip through channels and witness what is being passed off a humerous these days. Ridiculous characters with exaggerated personalities and a new silly predicament each and ever episode. The characters just go on doing what they do because that is what they do. Beyond mindless entertainment. Look back at all your favorite comedy shows over your lifetime? What was the thing that kept you coming back to that show? I think most people would say that it was the characters. I think that is the key to a successful sitcom. Characters that you can really care about. Really love. Really hate. Really imagine them existing in real life. Once you have real three dimensional characters, then you can throw them into all kinds of silly and bizare situations. Most sitcoms seem to focus more on the situations than the characters, resulting in 2-D hyperbolic charicatures. And that is why probably more than 90% of all situation comedies infesting the airways and cableboxes are complete, generic crap, and only funny to a point, and even that only when you care to turn off your brain before watching.

Okay, stepping off my soap box now... So yeah, ultimately I have very little to offer you.

Yeah, but it is still closely connected. Just instead of having him blow the head of the flying deadite and become a hero, he gets captured and sentenced to death. So it wasn't like they started from scratch.

You could actually edit all three Evil Dead films together (I've considered doing this, but never got around to it), snip out a few redundant bits, and end up with one long movie in which the main character ages very rapidly. I'd like to see them keep that trend with ED IV, if it ever gets made.

Fanboys had Carrie Fisher and Billy Dee Williams in it.

Kristen Bell is the girl who played in Heroes season 2, the ditsy spoiled blond that can throw lighting balls if I remember right. She was the lead female in Fanboys. She was in a gold bikini at the end of the film. 

Lol, not quite sure how Shawn of the Dead randomly and haphazardly slipped into the coversation. That is one of those films you either like or you don't, has nothing to do with the in crowd, in fact I think it is consider lame and geeky by all the cool kids.

I like them both well enough. But I agree with Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell that the director's cut ending feels more appropriate. Since it is their prefered ending, I am 90% certain that a fourth film will work off of that one.

Mailing it to you wouldn't be making a point.

It was alright. Had its moments. Very limited appeal though. I can't imagine anyone who isn't some degree of a Star Wars nerd finding anything to like about it. Not surprised it didn't get a wider release.

Marcus as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character.

Yeah, that is kind of how I feel about Jar Jar in The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character, which he becomes in the later too prequels. Over the top characters are a good thing. Far better than serious background characters that remain vague. Can't stand background characters that only exist as part of the story and refuse to provide me an overdose of comic relief.

skyjedi2005 said:

 

They should make a show just around FOX canceling shows.

That is a show I'd give a chance! I'd probably suck, and get cancelled by FOX after the first season though.

It could be a documentary style show like The Office, called the Studio Executives. It would feature a cast of query studio employees having to deal with things like writers allowing their shows to jump the shark and having to make the hard decision to fire them (Heroes) and quickly come up with some new writers who do just as bad of a job. One story arc could revolve around a writers strike. There could be a lovable goofy young intern who is always making funny and charming blunders. The titular executives would also have to deal with things like Prima Donna actors wanting more pay, or wanting to weasel their way out of contracts, or demand a better personal trailer. A running joke could be that they are constantly looking for a new sci-fi show to the one they are canceling. As soon as they successfully replace their canceled show, they decide the new one isn't working either, shift its time slots around, then start looking for a new show to replace it with. Some short minor mention of their sci-fi show delima would be made in every episode.

This could be exciting stuff, and it might actually even be funny. Quick, someone remind me why I am not a TV writer again?

skyjedi2005 said:

I heard heroes and dollhouse were renewed.

Sarah Connor cancelled withour reprieve, i know sorry guys who loved the show.  When shows that jumped the shark 2 seasons ago like heroes are still on the air. Oh well.

Lost was renewed also.  The plot was "LOST"  a long time ago the show jumped the shark.  Yet it is one of those original bizarre entertainments like X-files beyond season 5 that make you go hmm.

Disappointed TSCC was cancelled, I'd hoped they'd pick it up for a third season. But it really did it to itself, if I were in charge of making the decison, I couldn't justify renewing it either.

I don't think Lost ever jumped the shark by any means. It simply started off as a show with mainstream appeal, and slowly evolved/revealed itself to be a sci-fi show, which quite honestly, are never that popular. Season two, where people say the shark was jumped, is when I really got into the show and started to consider myself a fan. Season one, where everyone consider the show ground breaking and award worthy, is the season I only kept watching because my wife liked it. If it hadn't been for her, I wouldn't have watched very much beyond the pilot. I think the last season of Lost was far superior to the first season. Lost was putting a foot on the shark, and seriously considering jumping it with parts of season three, but they completely redeemed themselves with the S3 finale and have been going strong ever since.

To me, it is the best long running sci-fi show to hit air waves since The X-Files, only looks like it will remain strong until the end, where X-Files bombed big time before the death throw subsided.

Regardless of whether or not they are making it all up as they go, which is by far the biggest complaint I hear against the show, it is to their credit that many of the mysteries of the first season make perfect sense in light of revelation made in the later seasons. If they have been making it up as they go, they have done a great job at it, especially considering the vast number of writers and limitations with the availability of some of the actors. People get impatient with the show because answer come so slowly, but to me that makes it all the more enjoyable. If you are the type that likes to read the last page of a book immediately after finishing the first chapter before proceeding to read everything between, then you are going to be frustraited with the show. If you enjoy reading all pages of a book in order, spoiler free as the author intended, then Lost is a lot of fun.

Army of Darkness plays on TV all the time, because it is a pretty easy film to edit for content. Evil Dead II however is so over the top violent (we are talking Monty Python style blood splirts, not anything realistic) that most TV stations wouldn't be able to play it during waking hour without having to edit it down to a ten minute runtime, if they even managed to make it that long.

I think Evil Dead II is a far funnier film than Army of Darkness. If you liked Army of Darkness in the least, then Evil Dead II is definitely worth a netflix rental. Grab AOD while you are at it, and watch them back to back. They fit together seamlessly like one long movie. Then make a point to rewatch them both with the commentary on (note: only the director's cut of AOD has the commentary. I like the director's cut ending far better than the S-Mart ending, but unfortunately all the director's cut DVD transfers are pretty crappy).

skyjedi2005 said:

The only one i like is the jokey third film anyway since i'm not a serious horror or gore fan.

I am not a horror fan by any means either. Have you seen the second film, sky? It is as jokey as the third one. There is a bit more of a horror eliment to Evil Dead II than Army of Darkness, but like its sequel, it is very much intended to be a comedy. It is in fact one of the funniest movies I have seen in my entire life. I still crack up every time I watch it... I even crack up when I just think about watching it.

It is a great movie, especially being watched late at night with some buddies and a few beers. But even beerless, alone, and during the day time, its greatness shines brilliantly.

Trust me sky, from a fellow non-fan of the horror genre, you've got to see Evil Dead II before you write it off. Skip the first one, it is downright creepy (in a cheesy fun kind of way), and the second one gives an inaccurate, but good enough full recap of the events of the first one anyway. The commentaries on the second and third films alone have more entertainment and comedic value to them than all the top comedies of the last three years combined.

skyjedi2005 said:

Do you think Bruce Campbell is too old for a IV ED film?

 

He is only 50. Harrison Ford was in his mid sixties when he did IJATKOTCS.

And the character of Ash is suppose to be a loser who works at a department store and acts like a self important ass all the time. He doesn't have to do a lot of real challenging physical stuff like Indiana Jones.

Vaderisnothayden said:

You obviously think that your opinion that Raiders is better is unchallengeable objective fact. Fine, people often think their opinions are objective fact, and sometimes they're right.

As obvious as it may seem to you, it is not the case. My opinion is my opinion and nothing more. Most certainly not unchallengeable fact.

I do believe Raiders is a better movie than the later two films, and I think there is quite a bit of evidence to support this, but I am not really interested in discussion it in detail because it will go nowhere. Your feelings are that each Indiana Jones film got a bit more Indiana Jonesy until it reach a superlative level of Indiana Jonesiness with The Last Crusade. My feeling are that a near perfect action/adventure film was made in the 80's, beautifully styled after old black and white adventure serials, and the three sequels that followed drifted away from the spirit and quality of the original, finally ending on IJATKOTCS which felt like a cheap comedy spoof of itself.

I cannot foresee you or I saying anything to convince the other to abandoned their current point of view on the subject at hand.

Yeah, yeah, I know, this has been talked about since Army of Darkness came out.

But Sam Raimi confirmed just this March that he and his brother are in fact working on the script (though from the sounds of it, it isn't a very big priority).

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24473

For a while they were talking about making a remake, but from the sounds of things, Bruce Campbell confirmed last year that the remake is dead. Which is fine with me, what I really want is a sequel to Army of Darkness. I am excited to hear the script is being worked on, and really hope the thing gets made in the not too distant future.

I know there are a few ED fans on these boards. What do you guy think about an Evil Dead IV?

I am not a fan of over milking things. Sure, I think three Evil Dead movies are more than enough. A sequel really isn't needed. The number of franchises from the 80's and 90's that are presently getting sequels is really lame, and IMHO shows that Hollywood is hard up for new ideas. But I guess the thing that always made the Evil Dead so great was that it wasn't sacred. It would piss all over itself, and we'd love it all the more for it.

They even have two directions they could go with it. They could continue from the S-Mart ending, or pick up right where The Director's Cut of Army of Darkness left off with Ash sleeping too long. This is what I'd rather see them do. In this way, they could pick up right where they left off without Campbell's age being an issue. If his hair grew while he slept, then it stands to reason he might age a little during that time as well. Evil Dead isn't even the kind of movie where that kind of thing matters anyway. Technically AOD begins the very same evening as the first Evil Dead began, and Ash is clearly much older. Or they could pick up after the S-Mart ending.

One thing is for sure, if they don't stick with the silly low budget looking stop motion special effects & bad makeup, and switch to CG instead, I think it'll ruin it. Those things are so much a part of ED.

Ziz said:

Actors are only typecast in the minds of people who are too lazy or stupid to separate the actor from the character (s)he portrays.

Not really. Good way to turn it around and blame the audience, but that isn't very fair. Some actors really are typecast to certain roles. Why? Because they play the same sort of role over and over again. Is that the audiences' fault that they have a hard time imagining that actor in any other role, when that is the only kind of role they have seen them in? Hardly! If an actor doesn't want to be typecast, all they have to do is branch out a bit. You see some actors and are blow away at their ability to do different things, and then you hear Jim Carrey/Adam Sandler have a new comdey out, and decide to skip it because you have seen the last five movies he has been in and can barely distinguish one from the other.

It is not the duty of the audience to not be "lazy" or "stupid" and suspend their belief that this character played in the same way by the same actor as a character different movie are two entirely different and unique individuals. If and actor is worth his salt he will convince you of this, regardless of your level of intelligence or your incentive to work at convincing yourself.

skyjedi said:

Maybe Whedon will give the poor guy a role on dollhouse.

What is he missing a paycheck now that serenity came out in 2005, and now its 2009.  Lol.

Nathan Filion stars in a current TV series. Not sure how well his show is doing, but it isn't like he hasn't starred in anything since Serenity in '05. He has been in a movie or two since then also, not every actor is like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt who play in film after film after film after film, sometimes with two or more films in the theter at a time to the point where you get sick of seeing their girly little faces. Thankfully, most decent actor don't find themselves caught up in that fadish branding.

Rather see a good film staring good actors than see a film built around an actor because of his "star power!" and popularity.

auximenies said:

I think this went over folks' heads.  There's been a lot of turn over on these boards...

Yeah, but all of the cool, long enduring off-topic members got it... maybe.

There was also Nanner Split's Super Fun Time Land.

And of course my all time favorite, the interforum crises caused by Hotrod being an ass to some guy, which lead to an Orc/middle aged virgin invasion.

Man, those were the good old days... Now can suck my balls too! But preferably after it has finished with Gaffer and rinsed its mouth out first...

This discussion reminds me how guys like Dayv and Sean used to bitch about how badly this placed sucked, and how much better it used to be. I'd get so annoyed at them, and now here I am doing the same. :P

And actually, I don't remember the circumstances, but I think I was being a complete and total ass with the whole Hot.Like.C3PX thread, so that is one I am probably better off not joking around about resurrecting. I'd like to think I have mellowed and become a more respectable member since those days (probably not though).

EyeShotFirst said:

Raiders really wasn't perfect it was flawed in many ways.

Quick, name five flaws in Raiders as fast as you can without having to stop and think about it. GO!

Not trying to say Raiders is perfect, obviously no film is. As far as action films go, I think Raiders is a perfect example of one well done.

The argument from EyeShotFirst that I quoted above is a classic argument for defending crap in the middle of a room filled with gold. Sure, this piece of shit my dog deposited on the floor is far from perfect, no arguments there! But come on, none of these gold bricks in here are perfect either.

Some things are better made than others, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. I like a lot of movies most people think are crap. I really enjoy the first two Planet of the Apes sequels, but I don't hesitate to admit they are no where even close to the standard of the first film. The first film is a cinematic classic, the second and third are crap that I happen to like. The fourth and fifth are crap that I enjoy watching for time to time. Same for Back to the Future, I know the second two are shit, but I still enjoy them. It would be pointless for me to feel the need to defend my enjoyment of these films by saying, "Well, the first Planet of the Apes/Back to the Future film really wasn't much better than the sequels."

IrishLuck1980 said:

 Attack of the Douches

Wow! I think I just experienced the most terrifying image in my mind. The idea of a hundred little douches surrounding a house of survivors, closing in on them, thumbing against the boarded up windows trying to find their way in...

This could potentially become the most frightening horror film ever made... if someone ever bothers to make it...

Not really words of support, I was just goofing off and spoofing on advice columns. Had just gotten off work and felt like blowing off steam by amusing myself, and hopefully a few others. That is not to say my words didn't have a good deal of truth to them. 

I really did go through a frustrating stage of trying to edit the PT myself, or find the perfect fan edit so I could enjoy them along with the OT. Finally decided it wasn't worth it and that no amount of editing would ever make me enjoy the PT. Instead of destroying my PT, I condemned them to spending eternity taped up in a cardboard box, knowing they are unloved and unwanted. Destroying them, while it may be more satisfying to some, to me it is letting them off too easily.

It would be fun if we all saved up our unwanted SW DVDs, and shredded the things, boxes, inserts and all in industrial quality shredders, and send them to Skywalker Ranch by the thousands. It would be awesome, and would probably make national news. Unfortunately, it would be hard to get that many fans to part with their stuff, no matter how much they claim to hate them, and most those who would be willing to destroy disc one of their GOUTS and their prequels have probably already done so.

A lot of people talked about doing things like this (mailing them to Skywalker Ranch) when the GOUT first came out. Did anyone ever actually do it?

Darth Solo said:

I need to get away fom these people who love and buy into EVERYTHING Star Wars.

Then you are most definitely among friends. I think there are a good deal of reformed Starwarsoholics around these parts (and naturally, probably just as many if not more non-reformed).

Darth Solo said:

I payed for them im affraid, so i feel raped.

Dear Darth Solo,

I sympathize with you. Be assured, you are not alone. Many individuals feel the way you do, but I feel the need to point out your poor usage of the word "raped". You choose to pay for them. It was consensual. May have been a poor choice. He may not be the guy you thought he was when you gave yourself to him, but you choose to do it. At any rate, glad to hear you got out of an unhealthy relationship. I don't know what it is, but some people really seem to hang onto things they think they should like but don't. There should be a lot less people saying, "Man, I hate the PT, every single time I watch it I feel like throwing up!" and a lot more saying, "Ah, I barely remember the PT. I haven't seen it in ages." I wish more people would stand up for themselves, take control of their lives, be true to themselves, and put an end to their unsatisfying relationships with poorly made films.

In my own personal experience with the PT, I spent a lot of time caring about it and trying to force it to be the series of films I wanted it to be. It took me a while, but finally I realized they are what they are. The problem wasn't with it, the problem was with me. We just were not meant to be together. I can't force them to be something they aren't through pointless fan editing. It was not fair to them, and it was not fair to me. It was a difficult decision, but ever since we went our seperated ways I have felt much better about myself, and much more optimistic about life in general.

I wish you the best of luck with your future film relationships,

H. L. C3PX

(Whoa, I'm thinking about resurrecting the Hot.Like.C3PX thread and turning it into an advice column. What do you guys think?)

I have the entire prequel trilogy on DVD, all recieved as gifts from my family since they know I am such an SW fan. They are packed away in a box in my garage somplace. They are a good thing to own for the sake of obtaining fan edits with a clean concious, but other than for that, I wouldn't miss them if I never saw them again.

IrishLuck1980 said:

I tried Mr Lucas.  I really did try and enjoy your Star Wars Prequels.  But, I just can't.  They suck that bad.  Well, I gathered all my Star Wars Prequels merchandise I had, not alot surprising, and threw it in the garbage.  I don't even acknowledge their existence anymore.

You've just taken your first step into a larger world.

It wasn't until the late nineties when news about the new upcoming Star Wars trilogy was in every issue of Insider that me and my buddies began calling them by their episode titles, and even then rarely. Before that they were always Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. Back then their episode numbers were just an interesting bit of trivia to us, "Did you know?: Star Wars is actually the fourth film in the series. Someday, George Lucas intends to make the first three parts of the series." We knew 1, 2, and 3 where supposedly on their way sometime in the distant future. But it was such a long way off, it felt to us a bit like talking about Christmas in June, it was way too far off to start getting excited about.

ChainsawAsh said:

I haven't seen it yet, but there's one aspect of it that I already know about that I just can NOT forgive:

Skynet knowing that Kyle is John's father.  That alone is bad enough.

But then ... they use Kyle as bait to draw out John ... when they could just fucking KILL KYLE, thereby killing John!  WTF?!  Ugh ...

So yeah, I'm pretty predisposed to disliking it.

See the movie before you decide to let that bit bother you. It isn't exactly as it was explained to you. Kyle's name is on a Skynet hit list, but it is never explained or suggested that it is because he is John's father. My assumption was that he was on there because he is the one John sent back to protect himself. That makes perfect sense to me. Skynet sends back an Terminator to kill Sarah Connor, John sends back a soldier to protect her, Skynet attempts to kill that soldier while he is still a teenager before John can even meet him let alone send him back in time. This doesn't mean John won't send back someone else, but to Skynet it does mean things will happen differently, which gives them a chance at success. It is perfectly reasonable to assume Skynet would try to eliminate Kyle.

By the time Kyle is used as bait, John has already talked to Marcus and told him that he needs to find Kyle, I believe he even mentioned that Kyle was his father. Marcus interfaces and syncs with Skynet's computers to find out where Kyle is being held. It is reasonable to assume that they got that information from Marcus.

Alternatively, both Sarah and Reese were at one point locked away in institutions where they ranted about Judgement Day and time travel, this information was filed away in records. It is possible that Skynet looked up these files, and discovered some connection there. I'd still go with my first explaination though.

I suppose these paradox problems depend on if you take these events as creating alternative timelines, or if you take them as a mobius strip. The first film obviously went with the mobius strip idea. John is concieved because the man he sent back in time impregnated his mother. Skynet is made because parts of the Terminator they send back in time were discovered and reverse engineered. The end is the beginning and the beginning is the end.

Terminator 2 broke the whole mobius strip thing with the whole "No fate..." bit. The original ending to that film had an old Sarah explaining that Judgement Day never came. This works just fine and paradox free (realitively speaking) if you consider it coil or a screw instead of an endless loop. With things playing out a little differently each time the game is played. This can also explain away the paradox of the first film. If you consider originally that Sarah might have had a son, named him John, and he later grows to become the leader of the resistance and good friends with Kyle Reese. He sends Kyle back in time to prevent a Terminator from killing his mom before he is born, and Kyle ends up telling her she will have a son named John who will grow up to be the leader of the resistance against Skynet. He gets her pregnant, and she has a son, names him John, and he becomes the leader of the resistance because he grows up hearing that that is what he is going to be. This John could be a completely different John from the one that originally sent Kyle back to protect his mom. 

Terminator 3 comes along and teaches us that you cannot make your own fate as the second film suggested, and that the inevitable is inevitable. No matter what you do, you cannot stop what is destined to be, all you can do is potentially delay it for a few years.

In Terminator Salvation you have John talking about this not being the future his mother told him about. This suggests that things are completely different from the future Kyle came from and told Sarah about.

I think it is obvious the films have officially done away with the mobius strip and adopted a shifting timeline, or even multiple timelines. Each and everytime they screw around with the past, things in the future change. The TV show, which is a completely different continuity from the films explicitly explains that this is the case.

With this take on time travel, Kyle could be killed off as a teenager, and John could still be born, because in his own past Kyle already went back and had relations with his mother. John wouldn't disappear or cease to exist, but now a new timeline will be created in which he is never born and never leads the resistance because Kyle is never sent back.

LOL @ Xhonzi. Yeah, that is exactly what I was saying. Hmm, speaking of bullseyeing womprats, while my wall didn't do much damage to the disc, my pellet gun might... Been while since I have been skeet shooting.