logo Sign In

greencapt

User Group
Members
Join date
12-Mar-2005
Last activity
8-Jul-2015
Posts
1,941

Post History

Post
#223978
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
Originally posted by: TheSessler
By the way, I was thinking about what David Carradine said in Kill Bill and I greatly disagreed with it:

What do you guys think, is Superman the disguise that Clark Kent uses to fight for "Truth, justice, and the American way," or is Clark Kent the persona that Superman/Kal-El puts on so that he fits in with society?


The former, IMHO.
Post
#223109
Topic
SUPERMAN RETURNS REVIEW
Time
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Dayv, could someone who hasn't seen Superman 2 enjoy and understand the film?


From what I know of the logical inconsistencies in the plot even someone who HAD seen S2 wouldn't be able to understand it. Well maybe a bit better so than anyone who had ever read a Superman comic...

EDIT: But then again I'm a cynical nearing middle-age man who has no fingers on the pulse of modern sensibilities so I should be disregarded at all costs.
Post
#222706
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I just don't understand all this hate against that director. Gotta be something personal.


ric, I don't think this is 'all that hate'. I posted a link to a news article/press release about his book. I found the article to be interesting in a telling way about a pompous filmmaker. I'm not a fan of pompous. Shortly after '6th Sense' came out critics started making comparisons to Hitchcock and M. Night started believing it- and encouraging it. When I read that article it just burned me as its hard enough for talented filmmakers to get funding in Hollywood and to have poor, poor misunderstood man, to whom the studio was willingly to give money albeit with some editorial suggestion (or not even), come out with a tell-all novel to show how put-upon he is... that has nothing to do with filmmaking- that's a bad human being. As I've said in many many other threads- movies, games, comics, etc, etc... all the stuff we geek over... are pure useless crap when held up against just being decent human beings and the stuggles of life on this planet. So when privileged or lucky people whine this loudly it irritates me. If he just made his films, didn't try to make his name more important than his films and let them speak for themselves I wouldn't have even started this thread.

On a day-to-day basis I never think of M. Night at all- until I read that article.

Plus I enjoy bitching. Its fun.

Oh and ADM, if 'Witchdoctor' isn't to your liking, you could always try this one:

MMMNight...bidi dapa doo wight
Doo bi dapa doo bight
Bidi dapa doo, yeah, yeah
MMMNight...bidi dapa doo wight
Doo bi dapa doo bight
Bidi dapa doo, yeah, yeah

Post
#222693
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
GC, I just have to say that all weekend long I had Alvin & The Chipmunks "The Witchdoctor" stuck in my head with this subject line replacing the lyrics.

Oooo eeeeee oooooo I hate
M. Night Ramalamadingdong

Over and over and over like the kid who puts $10 in the jukebox and picks the same song 40 times just to annoy everybody in the room.


Aha! Now my evil plan is coming to fruition! MwwuuhahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHahahahahHAHAHAHahaaaaaa.......

Post
#221447
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
LOL. greencapt, you're killing me. I hope I never piss you off.


C'mon MBJ... you could never do that! Well, I suppose if you did something atrocious like taking a classic film.. maybe 'Star Wars' and fan-editing in a bunch of CGI or changing the whole nature of characters with shoddy effects inserts or the like... then THAT might piss me off!

As for 'Sixth Sense', aside from the 'surprise' ending its actually a very plodding and sometimes downright boring film. I'm one of those people who *gasp* figured it out in the first five minutes ('gee,' I thought 'Bruce Willis' character just took a generally fatal chest shot... and then suddenly its a year later or whatever with NO mention of it whatsoever.. and we know the kid sees dead people' Hmm) and I spent the rest of the film *hoping* the director would prove me wrong with something more clever than a poor Twilight Zone ending and clever ad campaign. "Don't reveal the secret ending to your friends folks because we need all the ticket sales we can get!" Hell I admire 'The Blair Witch Project' more because of the way the duped the public into wanted... needing... to see such a piece of shit film as it was. Both are examples of the ultimate 'water-cooler' moment movies... you have to see them because *everybody* is talking about them. Sigh. But digression aside 'Sixth Sense', from a cinematography point of view, was indeed a *clever* movie with passable acting jobs. 'Bruce... act, like, you know... dead but not dead.' 'Haley (what did your parents have sex the last time the comet came around?) act like scared and stuff but quiet. You know?

George Lucas: "Faster. More Intense."
M. Night: "Slower. More Intense."

I had a one-word review of 'Unbreakable' (and this from a comic book geek).... 'Unwatchable'.
Post
#221332
Topic
Superman Movie
Time
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Sorry ... missed your post on the previous page. Thanks for posting it, Greencapt.

What's the UPC on the disc and I'll just look it up and buy it.

Is it missing any tracks or cues from the actual film? Or is it a truly complete soundtrack?

Edit: Is it this one?

That's it exactly!

Originally posted by: Bossk
This six-year absence of Supes should be interesting in terms of its explanation. It looks like Lois has a kid now according to some studio stills.


It gets worse and worse my friend... that's why I would have voted for a 'Batman Begins'-ish reboot instead of a quasi-maybe-sorta-sequel. Not do a new origin story mind you, as I think most people basically know the origin... just a much more respectful to 20 years of comics history adventurey kind of film.
Post
#221263
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Sure ric there ARE plenty of bad directors out there. And I never said he was a bad director (mediocre at best) just that he was a one-trick pony. It just infuriates me the levels to which he has to shove his personal-side on the public... I've known such people in real life and its usually a sign that they realize that if they left their work to stand on its own people would quickly cease to care about them.

M. Night, prior to his last film, had a 'controversial' documentary(fake) made about himself to be aired on SciFi networkwhich served to take the spotlight away from the film itself. And now just prior to his NEXT film we have to hear about his 'woe is me' life in Hollywood... except all the points in the article I quoted above that the studio execs brought up are mainly valid! And why should any studio put up the money if they don't think they'll turn a profit- it IS a business after all and like I said I'm sure he has enough money to finance it himself. Though he probably has his invested in the M. Night Memorial Museum of Film History which, as you exit the museum itself, drops you into a large bucket of poo- a 'surprise ending'! But I digress...

As far as Boll as a director yes of course he's shit but that is purely the studios fault for letting him direct films at all. I don't remember any whiny 'tell-all' books from him or interviews in which he claims to be Orson Welles reincarnated (as M. has basically done about Hitchcock).
Post
#221254
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Originally posted by: Bossk

And I've heard absolutely nothing about Lady in the Water. But, if the downward trend is any indication, I hold little to no hope for it.


I at least got a good audience laugh from the trailer- I was at the opening of 'Goblet of Fire' and the theater played the first 'LITW' preview... after the obligatory "from the mind of M. Night blahblahblah" bit they got to the scene where the camera is under water in the pool and the star is looking down... and I yelled out in the theater "I see WET people!" and many people in the crowded house bust a gut.
Post
#221190
Topic
I hate M. Night Ramalamadingdong!
Time
Those who know me probably know my disdain for one-trick-pony filmmaker M. Night Ramalamadingdong. But for those who want some insight into just how cuckoo-for-cocopuffs this guy is I present an article from the L.A. Times about his new book. Someone should do a film about what a psycho-nutjob this guy is but I'm afraid it would just further feed his ego. "Wannnhhhh...", he cries "people just don't understand me but DAMN THEM how dare they criticize me." I mean look a-hole... Mel Gibson at least had the balls to put up his own money for his vanity projects... don't piss on about some studio giving you $60-70 because you buy into your own hype.

I'm quoting the entire text of this article here so you don't have to sign up at latimes.com:

Shyamalan Book Tells of Breakup With Disney
By Claudia Eller, Times Staff Writer
June 23, 2006

A new chapter has just been written in Hollywood about the never-ending tension between "the talent" and "the suits."

It can be found in a soon-to-be-published tell-all book that offers something very rare, indeed: a candid recounting, complete with tears and recriminations, of a messy divorce between a movie studio and one of the world's most famous writer-directors.

In "The Man Who Heard Voices: Or, How M. Night Shyamalan Risked His Career on a Fairy Tale," the 35-year-old filmmaker whose name has become synonymous with spooky suspense thrillers crucifies the top executives at the company he long had considered his artistic home since his 1999 surprise hit "The Sixth Sense": Walt Disney Studios.

Penned by Sports Illustrated writer Michael Bamberger with Shyamalan's blessing and extensive participation, the 278-page book hits stores July 20. That's one day before the theatrical premiere of Shyamalan's new movie, "Lady in the Water," which is at the center of the dispute that led him to part ways with Disney.

The $70-million movie, a scary fantasy that stars Paul Giamatti as an apartment building superintendent who rescues a sea nymph he finds in his swimming pool, was ultimately financed by Warner Bros.

But arguably as shocking as the movie itself is the way Shyamalan, in the book, disses his former studio. As galleys circulate around town, that more than anything else has people musing about just how fragile relationships between artists and executives can be.

Disney production President Nina Jacobson gets the worst drubbing.

Jacobson and Shyamalan enjoyed a close, albeit sometimes combative, relationship. Over six years, she shepherded his four Disney films including "Unbreakable," "Signs" and "The Village." On what would have been their fifth collaboration, their bond so eroded that the two didn't speak for more than a year.

At a disastrous dinner in Philadelphia last year, Jacobson delivered a frank critique of the "Lady in the Water" script. When she told him that she and her boss, studio Chairman Dick Cook, didn't "get" the idea, Shyamalan was heartbroken. Things got only worse when she lambasted his inclusion of a mauling of a film critic in the story line and told Shyamalan his decision to cast himself as a visionary writer out to change the world bordered on self-serving.

But Shyamalan gets his revenge on Jacobson in the book, in which he says he had felt for some time that he "had witnessed the decay of her creative vision right before his own wide-open eyes. She didn't want iconoclastic directors. She wanted directors who made money."

Bamberger readily acknowledges that the book is told from Shyamalan's point of view.

"It's not intended to be balanced," Bamberger said of the book, based on a year he spent shadowing Shyamalan. "It's a Night-centric view of how Night works."

If that's all it was, of course, there wouldn't be so many bruised feelings at Disney, whose executives the book maligns as drones who lack creative vision.

Of Disney's three top executives, Jacobson, Cook and marketing head Oren Aviv, the book says, "They had morphed into one, the embodiment of the company they worked for. And that company … no longer valued individualism … no longer valued fighters."

Nevertheless, the book says Shyamalan was haunted by them.

"Sometimes Night would close his eyes and see little oval black and white head shots of Nina Jacobson and Oren Aviv and Dick Cook floating around in his head, unwanted houseguests that would not leave," Bamberger writes. "The Disney people had gotten deep inside his head, interfering with the good work the voices were supposed to do — and it would be hell to get them out."

In an interview, Bamberger said that in that section — like in several others — he was channeling Shyamalan's deepest convictions, even though the book usually does not quote the writer-director directly.

"Night really let me get inside his head," Bamberger said. "He told me what he was thinking, and I wrote it."

Shyamalan was vacationing in France and did not respond to questions sent via e-mail. His publicist, Leslee Dart, said her client "totally supports the book," and the book's publisher, William Shinker of Gotham Books, said Shyamalan had agreed to help promote the nonfiction account.

Were it not for Bamberger's book, the Disney-Shyamalan split might have been viewed as just another beat amid the constant churn of Hollywood relationships. Everyone knows that highly accomplished artists are often as deeply insecure as they are brilliant. It can be a challenge for executives to pacify the creative folks, while pleasing the bean counters.

"There is an elusive balance that all parties strive for between art and commerce," said Warner Bros. President Alan Horn, who was Shyamalan's first call after the breakup with Disney. With "Lady in the Water," which is being launched with a $70-million marketing campaign, Horn said, "We're trying to support a film that has unique artistic expression and at the same time make money."

Paramount Pictures President Gail Berman, whose studio recently decided to postpone production of "Ripley's Believe It or Not," starring Jim Carrey, over budgetary concerns, agreed.

"We all walk the line of devotion to the artist and fiscal responsibility," she said. "Sometimes this is the trickiest part of the job."

But, whereas Carrey and director Tim Burton are continuing to work out their script issues with Paramount, Shyamalan didn't give Disney that option. As the book says, Shyamalan felt that when executives criticized his "Lady in the Water" script "they were rejecting him." So he walked.

Disney's executives are not the only ones who are ripped in the book. Miramax Films co-founder Harvey Weinstein is described as "famously tyrannical" and is portrayed as ruthlessly recutting Shyamalan's 1998 indie film "Wide Awake."

"Why is he doing this?" Shyamalan is quoted asking one of Weinstein's lieutenants.

"Because you're not an A-list director," the unnamed aide answers.

"But could I be?" Shyamalan asks. Then, Bamberger takes us into Shyamalan's head as he imagines Weinstein's answer: "Night heard Harvey screaming in the silence: 'You're not, and you never will be.' The movie bombed, as it had to. It had been made in bad faith."

That, in essence, is the reason Shyamalan — who today is not only A-list, but is such a known quantity that his name alone sells a movie — gives for his refusal to continue his relationship with Disney.

The book's most revealing scene is the tense dinner of Feb. 15, 2005, and its aftermath — referred to by Shyamalan's colleagues as "The Valentine's Day Massacre."

The setting was a fancy Philadelphia restaurant, Lacroix, not far from the farmhouse where Shyamalan, his wife and two daughters live. But from the start, the book says, the dinner seemed doomed. The tables were too close together, and "Night felt that other diners could hear their conversation."

Seated next to Shyamalan, Jacobson aired her problems with the script. Criticisms "came spewing out of her without a filter," Bamberger writes.

"You said it was funny; I didn't laugh," the book quotes her as saying. "You're going to let a critic get attacked? They'll kill you for that … Your part's too big; you'll get killed again … What's with the names? Scrunt? Narf? Tartutic? Not working … Don't get it … Not buying it. Not getting it. Not working."

Her words went over like spoiled fish. "She went on and on and on," the book says. "Night was waiting for her to say she didn't like the font" his assistant had printed the script in.

After way too many courses, Disney executives walked Shyamalan and his agent to the elevator, and Cook asked to speak to the director alone.

"Just make the movie for us," Cook said, hoping to keep Disney's most important director in the fold. "We'll give you $60 million and say, 'Do what you want with it.' We won't touch it. We'll see you at the premiere."

Shyamalan said he couldn't do that. He couldn't work with those who doubted him. As Cook and his team left the hotel, Shyamalan broke down and cried.

"He was crying because he liked them as people and he knew he would not see them again, not as his partners," the author writes. "He was crying because he was scared … He was crying because he knew they could be right."

Shyamalan wasn't the only one crying. Jacobson has confided to colleagues that when she returned to her hotel room at the Four Seasons that night, she broke down.

She and Shyamalan would not talk again until March of this year. At the director's request, the two met for breakfast at the posh Hotel Bel-Air.

By then, Bamberger writes, Shyamalan had realized that "it wasn't Nina's fault that she didn't 'get' the original 'Lady' script, it was Night's fault."

Despite that late-in-the-book mea culpa, associates of Jacobson say that reading the tell-all was painful for her. She declined to comment on the book and on Shyamalan himself. But she acknowledged the inherent difficulties of the "patron-artist" relationship.

"Not seeing eye to eye on a particular piece of material doesn't have to be the end of a relationship," Jacobson said. "It may not always be easy to have an honest exchange. But in order to have a Hollywood relationship more closely approximate a real relationship, you have to have a genuine back and forth of the good and the bad."

She added: "Different people have different ideas about respect. For us, being honest is the greatest show of respect for a filmmaker."
Post
#221188
Topic
A Future For Futurama?
Time
Hey! News at last!!!

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=15106

Comedy Central has resurrected the former Fox series Futurama, ordering 13 episodes to debut in 2008. The deal builds upon the cable channel's acquisition of the 72-episode library last fall.

Discussions about a revival of the half-hour began in earnest earlier this year between Futurama producer 20th Century Fox Television and series creators Matt Groening and David X. Cohen.

Actors Billy West, Katey Sagal and John DiMaggio are onboard for the new episodes that will continue the story of the pizza delivery boy, accidentally frozen for 1,000 years, who wakes up in the future.

Futurama has traveled a course similar to that of animated series Family Guy, which also was cancelled and later brought back after DVD releases and off-network repeats grew a new fanbase.
Post
#221040
Topic
Superman Movie
Time
Originally posted by: Bossk
The iTunes Music Store has a free two and a half minute clip from the movie that looks so incredibly cool. I don't want to let it happen, but I'm falling hook, line, and Singer for the hype surrounding this movie. Sorry about the pun.


OK, I watched the clip and have to ask... seriously as I know many of you are about my age (35)- if this clip did NOT feature the John Williams 'Superman' theme would it be cool? If you're anything like me you could just listen to that theme with Martha Stewart or some crap on in front of you and *still* be moved. Its a theme, like Williams' OT Star Wars themes, that creates a nostalgic and emotional response.

Just curious, not picking on anyone- we like what we like.
Post
#221038
Topic
Superman Movie
Time
Originally posted by: jack Spencer Jr
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I seem to remember in some old comic the reason nobody put two and two together and made the obvious connection between Clark and Superman was that he was doing some kind of mental projection trick to make them see a nerd instead of a buff guy in glasses, thought it might be something like that.


I have that issue. It was low-level hypnotism thanks to his glasses or something like that.


LOL- that reminded me of Megaton Man, a very funny 80s parody of superhero comics. The main character was, like Clark, a reporter but was so obviously Megaton Man thaat everyone in the story knew it- but he still believed it was a perfect disguise.

http://www.deniskitchen.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/BP_127.B.gif