Posts by quietdriver3

slyrider16 said:Don't tell me I missed some massive blowout between Jack and Beaver on this thread. - I swear I didn't see anything! 😢 I mean, Xavi, do you really have to be that intense about it? Maybe just give it a day or two before you go deleting everything. 😁 Someone please just DM me and catch me up on what went down. I've already got my popcorn ready...

Nah... something else was going on here, nothing to do with Jack or me... though I guess I might have given Xavi the wrong impression (now that I'm reading this after maybe 8 hours of sleep), but I don't *gasp* hate Cameron at all. Actually, I kind of enjoy his megalomania. I grew up watching his stuff, so it would be like someone forcing me to hate my left hand just because it isn't as coordinated as my right. 😁 Oh yeah, I'm also part of that 1% who doesn't hate Titanic. 😳 Honestly, Cameron is one of those rare guys who hasn't made a bad movie—well, if you don't count the first one, but those are just growing pains. So this isn't really a topic where I'd need to clash with Jack, since as far as I recall, he likes them too...

slyrider16 said:Back to the point, this is a pretty old thread. Luckily, things have shifted since then. Miraculously, the best option I mentioned in my original post is actually in production—Avatar. Still, we'll have to wait until summer 2009 to see it. Battle Angel Alita is in pre-production, and word is they're filming it back-to-back with Avatar once that wraps up. So we might see that in theaters by 2010. All the other projects are just rumors; nobody knows if or when Cameron will actually take them on.

Avatar looks interesting and I'm sure Cameron will make every cent worth seeing on the big screen, but honestly, I'm more curious about Alita—mostly because I read the manga and it feels like the perfect project for him. A love story in an unloving setting with a really cool female lead... basically: drama + sci-fi + a woman with guts + action = Cameron.

Amanda Lopez50 said:...you're just messing with me, right? 😁

I guess it depends on which part of the post you're looking at 😁

I honestly feel like his hiatus is directly responsible for the mess we're seeing in Hollywood today... man, just film something, anything—just start filming already! 🙏

Is it really that brutal? Like, how tough is it for a regular person to sit through? I don't want to be that guy who drags everyone along to see it, only to have them pissed off at me later because it was too much.

I'm more curious about who would actually win in a lunch debate, David Fincher or David Lynch? 😁

so... did you guys see that movie on Netflix yesterday? The one that runs three hours? Three whole hours, if I understood it correctly, just for some experimental flick? 😲

Honestly, this might be the best-looking movie ever put to film.

I wonder which version they ended up airing on NBC?

Charles Evans said:I mean, I end up flipping through MTV almost every single day, and honestly, the amount of pure nonsense coming out of those shows meant for teenagers is just... it's hard to even put into words how mindless it is.

I guess you just aren't watching the right stuff. Strutter is actually pretty awesome. 🙏

Charles Evans said:The whole reason they’re making Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines is just to wrap up the story.

"Wrap up the story?" I don't know, is that just a fancy way of saying they're gonna go for a total Mount Everest Love?

Uh, I have to admit, I’m feeling pretty disappointed. The direction felt kind of uninspired to me, almost like they were just going through the motions. And honestly, I didn't really get the whole point of using cell computer rotoscoping, because it feels like they barely scratched even 10% of what that tech could actually do. The atmosphere just wasn't there for me.

The script itself isn't bad, I guess, but the acting sort of gets lost in all that digital animation trickery... so it feels like the whole movie suffers because of it.

But maybe the DVD is worth grabbing if you just want to see Dick on screen. I've never actually seen him in motion or heard his voice before, so, I don't know, maybe Paul Giamatti could do a really good job playing him in some upcoming biopic. 👍

Sarah Lopez6 said:Alright, cool. I just started the download. Figured I’d get it going while the crew rolls in so we have something to watch while we hang out. The first one was actually pretty decent... hoping this one hits the same way too. 👍

let me know what you guys think

I thought the first movie was actually decent (kind of just a remix of George Romero's trilogy, I guess) until that last third where everything kind of fell apart

and for "28 Weeks Later," there's a lot of buzz out there saying it’s way better than the original

Caught the Super Bowl on TV today

It was such a surreal mix of East meets West. I guess the rockumentary really hits home when you see that shot of the Leninist statue decked out in all those rock and roll props. 😍

His whole thing is basically just playing some guy who thinks he’s an ape,

I mean, if he actually gave a damn about his career, he might be pretty impressive

northerncrane4 said:Man, that's a lot of money. What does he mean by "you don't have to develop 35mm film"?

I guess I thought he meant it’s cheaper because you aren't shooting on actual 35mm film stock... like, the processing would be less expensive. Since, you know, I assume TV productions here in the States don't really use film anymore—actually, now that I think about it, I'm not even sure what they actually use. 😕

northerncrane4 said:Only if it's a licensed show. They don't want anything original. They just buy the license and then dub it for American audiences. That's how they're doing "Ugly Betty" right now.

So, I guess we can pretty much write off television entirely.

I'm slowly running out of ideas... 😬

northerncrane4 said:So there’s no monopoly? I mean, the only network actually capable of funding a full-length feature film—assuming the other two even care, which they don't seem to—is CBS, and even then, we’re talking maybe two movies a year, and those are very, very low-budget.

Anyway, just for reference, how much does a very, very low-budget feature film cost here in the States? Wouldn't the fact that you don't have to develop 35mm film enough to really slash the price down a bit?

northerncrane4 said:Networks could totally be making great series—which is kind of the global trend anyway, where TV networks produce way higher quality stuff than movie studios—it's not like they aren't being offered the chance, but they just won't take it. CBS is too scared of public backlash if they stray from the usual formulas, and they're always in some kind of internal shuffle, so the current Drama Program editors can never really step out of line. For FOX, the peak is stuff like "Our Little Clinic" or a hundred different versions of Zora; meanwhile, the FOXers are just stingy because it's more profitable for them to just pump out a few more seasons of Big Brother or Forbidden Love to hit the ratings they need to stay happy.

I guess I always imagined the folks at FOX might be a bit more open to experimenting. Like, maybe they could pull off something new; I don't know, maybe a domestic series that dives into territory we've never seen around here—like sci-fi or horror. Something like that old Twilight Zone vibe; a cheap production driven by a cool trick or a clever idea.

Christian Sanchez44 said:It's a shame, really, because if everyone started working together to produce better quality stuff—movies, series, and especially commercials—it would probably help educate the public.

Commercials have improved lately, I suppose, but from what I gather, most good ads and jingles are made overseas on commission. And what about music videos? There was a time when you’d see decent domestic music videos on TV—like those Pips clips—but I'm not sure what the situation is these days, since I don't really get many chances to see them anymore.

northerncrane4 said:Since we're all talking about the future of American cinema, I was thinking maybe we could just call this thread "AMC Theatres, 7 PM." Or something like that, I guess.

I'm down. I guess.

Kyle Watson8 said:😁 So, where’s all the cynicism gone? I guess I was expecting a bit more bite, maybe. Maybe I just misread the room. 👍

I feel like I've just been running on empty lately... honestly, I think I've worn myself out a bit too much recently. I probably need to take some time to recharge my batteries, just so I can get back to being my old self again, I guess. 😁

northerncrane4 said:As far as I can tell, that distributor who also happens to be the exhibitor (which is either Issa or Associated Press) takes about 80% of the cut most of the time. And you're pretty much stuck. If you don't play ball, there's nowhere else to show your stuff.

Maybe the only real way for American movies to survive is to just skip the theaters entirely. Maybe go through TV? At least there isn't such a massive monopoly over there, I guess.

northerncrane4 said:I honestly think that if you want to make it outside of America, within the same language market, you really need a solid genre film. Though, making actual money there isn't exactly easy, especially when you consider how much of the box office goes straight into the pockets of distributors and theater owners.

Well, damn... yeah, I guess I’ve always been mentally splitting the revenue into two piles: the studio and the theaters. If I remember correctly, overseas they split things based on timing—like, maybe during the first week it's 80% distributor and 20% theater, and then every week after that it drifts toward a 50-50 split. But here in the States, to be honest, I have no clue how it actually works. I wonder if salaries are fixed or if there are profit percentages involved? 😕 How many viewers would an average American film with a standard budget—if we even have a standard budget, right?—actually need just to break even?

northerncrane4 said:The best part is, I actually have a script like that, but when the time came, nobody showed any interest, and by then, I had kind of lost steam on the whole idea. But I am planning something else—a radio drama called "purgatory," an audio commentary style thing.

Eh, well, next time the official cameras stop rolling, maybe just leave one running and record a few actors working through that script in parallel. Don't let the spark die out. 👍

northerncrane4 said:You know what I think the main issue is? It's that the protagonists are usually just observers. They aren't ever really active participants; they just watch stuff happen from the sidelines and end up being super disappointed.

Hey, hey, that is such a brilliant description of the typical American film. 👍 Now that I'm thinking back over our movies, it feels like the characters aren't even alive most of the time. They don't have any real dramatic agency; they're just protagonists used by the director to show off their own cleverness or to lecture the audience.

northerncrane4 said:I heard a rumor that Alfred Hitchcock is thinking about doing an adaptation of "Superman." 😬

Honestly, Superman has such incredible potential that maybe even Steven Spielberg could step in and give it a fresh spin. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Yeah, but who's actually going to teach them? And how do they learn to tear things down properly? Roger Ebert? John Williams? Jack Nicholson? Stephen King?

Chris, does everyone on that list really teach classes at the Academy? Like, are they all out there shaping the next generation? 😁

northerncrane4 said:If I remember right, there was some academic movie shown at the Day of the Film about ten years ago where a little girl gets killed too, which caused some sort of moralistic scandal or whatever, but man, I just can't recall the title or the director right now.

True, but a "girl getting killed" isn't really what sticks with me. What's actually impressive is that "fuck you" move John Carpenter pulled on the MPAA by sending them the wrong cut. 😉

Since I brought up Carpenter earlier—and honestly, I’m just sitting here vibing to "Assault on..." right now—it makes me wonder when we'll finally see a director in America pull off something similar to this:

"The most infamous scene in the movie is the one in which a gang member deliberately shoots and kills a little girl standing near an ice-cream truck. Following the advice of his distributor, Carpenter gave the appearance of complying by cutting the scene from the copy he gave to the MPAA, but he distributed the film with the "ice cream truck" scene intact."

😍

northerncrane4 said:I’m all for going fully digital. Maybe not in the sense of filming everything in garages or tiny studios—which, honestly, wastes so much of the production design budget on things that just end up in the trash, which isn't fair to those workers—but using digital cameras without any hesitation. It just feels like local cinephiles are still obsessed with film stock, even though it's insanely expensive to deal with under our circumstances here, and it doesn't really offer anything significantly better than a digital setup. Especially if you have a solid set of lenses for digital and someone in post-production who actually knows how to work the footage... and thank God, we’re seeing more of those people lately.

Though, I guess 70mm does capture light in a way that's hard to replicate. 😬

But yeah, I agree, digital tech really drives down costs and basically lets the masses start making movies.

northerncrane4 said:Yeah, except in this country, it's not just about lacking theater infrastructure; it's that there aren't enough people in the US who would watch a movie unless it was a massive blockbuster. Man, you'd probably need a fifth of the entire population to see a film just to break even.

Expanding distribution beyond our borders. Pushing your films everywhere they can understand you without needing subtitles. I think that would go a long way. In terms of revenue, anyway.

northerncrane4 said:It’s not about whether it’s easy for you or hard for the people trying to make a living from it. Of course it's hard for them! And it should be! Making a movie is grueling work! But most of them aren't even focused on filmmaking; they're more interested in sleeping around with actors or giving pretentious interviews. And then there's that other big goal—landing a professorship at the Academy. Once you get that, you're basically as good as dead. You don't ever have to make anything worthwhile again. You've got that academic salary safety net, and then you spend your time gatekeeping so nobody accidentally shows up who might actually be better than you. There's a pretty decent little sonnet Manifesto about that exact thing.

We really ought to be making a film about our film-making system. 😁

Larry Martin11 said:But, honestly, wherever I look, I just don't see the right "caliber" of people who could actually pull this off—I mean, I don't see that kind of concentration of young filmmakers here like they had in Denmark (northerncrane4, you’re probably more plugged in than I am, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and there seems to be such a lack of "closeness" among our filmmakers that might help them push for something bigger.

Of course, I wasn't talking about our "mainstream" directors. I don't see anything in their movies worth redeeming or starting a revolution with. We need a miracle. 😁

Larry Martin11 said:whether it's something that stifles creativity or just the fact that authors didn't have it to begin with, I don't know; but, if I manage to get into Juilliard this summer, I'll definitely let you know my impressions.

Definitely let me know. I actually gave up on that idea because I have this paranoia that there's a brainwashing machine hidden somewhere in the basement of that building. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Juilliard has a dean. And he isn't someone you necessarily need to impress; he's more like a film liaison for the Department of State (or, in some near or distant future, the Film Council). But are you really sure there's such a pattern? Like, could you describe it? Aside from that, you're totally right, there has to be zero hint of any actual artistic passion.

So, I guess it's a lack of style, a lack of imagination, and the fact that nobody asks interesting questions. Or at least different ones. For instance, I'm watching Vertigo 2 right now, and just imagine if a film came out in San Francisco that looked like something John Carpenter made (since we don't really have an auteur like him anymore). I just can't see it happening.

I'm really looking forward to the first American film based on a comic book. Any kind.

northerncrane4 said:I disagree with you there. That's exactly what they do during the first two years at Juilliard, at least it was in my day, so the results end up being nothing again. Dialogue is an essential part of film, and the solution isn't to avoid it, but to learn how to use it. And nobody is doing that.

Hey, you misunderstood me. I love dialogue; Mamet is one of the members of my personal Olympus. But like Larry Martin11 says, when you have scripts where everything is overemphasized, where the narrator has to explain the image, or where characters don't have monologues to explain their actions, then that's just nursery-school level dramaturgy. This "no dialogue" thing should, in my opinion, be teaching people how to solve problems, rather than how to adopt this "silent" principle. I think they should be breaking those rules during those first two years. 😉

northerncrane4 said:And look, here’s where the real headache kicks in—you’re forced to write the script with everything spelled out in dialogue just so the folks over at the Department of State can actually wrap their heads around it and give it the green light. That’s the trap, I guess. Because once that happens, you’re supposed to strip out all that raw, explicit stuff later on, but most directors just decide, "Hey, this is great as is," because they think if they changed it, it wouldn't pass anyway. Or they go the complete opposite way and toss the script entirely, just letting the actors improvise for ninety minutes straight. Honestly, I’m not sure which one is worse.

Yeah, I think we can all agree nothing is going to change until someone decides to stage a full-on crusade against those deep-seated bureaucrats in the Department.

Larry Martin11 said:but, I don't know, it seems like people in these discussions don't really like being complimented; everyone just runs away or hides immediately

Things have been pretty hectic lately, so I haven't even had the chance to get on the forums as much as I should.

Besides, it’s kind of tough to really dive deep into film talk on a non-film medium like this. We probably all need to just grab a beer sometime and vent properly. 😁 😁 😉

Larry Martin11 said:...aha, so that's how it is... :-) I have to admit, this caught me off guard—it’s got some real soul-searching in there, plenty of brilliant and somber moments, and there's no doubt there's a huge sense of satisfaction when you find THAT (!) something... but I wouldn't ever call it "fun" (I'd probably pick one of those heavy words nobody likes, so I won't write it down) that's where you and I differ, I guess. :-)

Actually, I don't think it's just about the soul-searching. For me, any kind of activity where I get to play God (meaning creativity! 😁) without consequences for anyone else—that's incredibly fun. Maybe I'm not fully aware of it right now, but looking back, I definitely am. I get it, there are certain demons that push you to do things you might not even want to do, but man, it's such a rush when you see what you're actually capable of creating. That's where I find my joy. And joy, well, it's pretty much a close cousin to fun. 😁 😁

Larry Martin11 said:I love movies based on simple, everyday stories; I love that "groundedness" you're talking about (if I understood you correctly—correct me if I'm wrong) regarding simple, small, unpretentious tales—but told with so much feeling for pacing and detail. To me, that's what makes a "pure" film, though that's a bit of an arrogant way to put it, and maybe totally inaccurate, but it takes so much enthusiasm and passion for the craft to pull that off.

No, no, that's not quite what I meant. I love ordinary stories too. Sometimes I catch myself telling a pretty mundane tale. I was thinking more about the *way* you tell it. You tell something your own way, because, I mean, the whole point of every film, story, comic, book, or any narrative art—at least in my book—is to make something that hasn't been done before. The plot itself can be the same, sure, why not? But you ask it a question (because that's the engine of every story, isn't it?) that no one has asked before, even if the answer is something we've seen a hundred times. Like, a specific idea. A reflection on someone else's thought, if necessary, so that while watching, you can say, "Man, this director must have been reading Whitman when they made this, damn it," instead of saying, "Ugh, just another formulaic piece made for San Francisco that will probably only please the Dean of the Juilliard School."

Larry Martin11 said:but the actors didn't really follow suit—and those kinds of "initiatives" are extremely rare around here.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? It's almost like there are no initiatives at all. Nobody wants to be the pioneer; everyone just wants to show up once the fight is already won. 😁

Larry Martin11 said:...but for me, there’s something else about our movies that really bugs me... it’s the technical inconsistencies. We have people who produce solid, decent cinematography (Samanovic, for instance), but nobody who truly fits my taste... to me, the biggest issue with our cinema is the flatness; everything feels one-dimensional, lacking symbolism, stripped of any attempt to say anything more than what’s being explicitly stated or shown on screen. It’s always like everything has to be spelled out, voiced, or drawn just to exist; and then some younger filmmaker, maybe someone like Matanic, tries to play around with symbolism or wants to tackle a more complex theme, but they just aren't able to create anything beneath the surface—not in the writing, not visually, the ideas always stay completely "flat"...

I agree. They should introduce an exam at the Academy where you can only pass by writing a feature-length screenplay that has absolutely no dialogue.

I’ve had to come up with scripts like that out of pure necessity, and honestly, it’s such a great exercise. 😁 😁

Larry Martin11 said:...and here I was thinking I was being naive. This sounds amazing, but it isn't quite that simple either; imagination is—and I’ve defended this before—necessary, but it isn't enough. The best proof is RAF (gee, I didn't realize you had a film there too, maybe I've actually seen it :-))—all these "auteurs" who think they have something to say, thinking a good idea and a little imagination is enough to make "something good"... but most of the time their films turn out to be mere sketches, unfinished projects, scattered pieces... imagination is definitely something innate, something you can learn, but having a beautiful idea and knowing how to convey it to someone else just isn't the same thing; amateurism is wonderful because the creators are still having fun, but it takes a lot of effort and a ton of knowledge to translate that fun onto film so the audience actually feels it—it doesn't seem accidental to me that so much of our amateur filmmaking ends up being trash films, because it's like a lot of creators think being charming, playful, or having that "surface-level wit" will camouflage the fact that they were working with nothing and that the film is no-budget, but for me, it just isn't like that, or it's not enough;

Believe me, I know. I’m aware of it. To be honest, I don't find making trash films or parodies particularly exciting at all (which is about 90% of what you see at those amateur festivals). It's not a challenge for me anymore. And I'm fully aware of all the flaws in amateur productions, and all the headaches that come with those weekend shoots. Bad acting from volunteers, meager or non-existent set design, and then bad sound, bad cinematography. That’s why writing a script for those kinds of projects is the hardest part. It's damn hard. Just imagine, how do you write a script with a single character who stays silent (because, let's face it, they aren't a pro actor, so you bypass as much dialogue as possible 😁 (and then you have to frame them and shoot differently, avoiding close-ups and things like that)), set in two or three locations, and make it last at least 30 minutes while still staying interesting? It's a really good exercise. And exhausting. I hope you'll catch glimpses of that effort at one of the next RAFs. 🙂