Posts by northerncrane4

quietdriver3 said:And that’s exactly why we’re so lucky to be living in this digital age—after some actual practice, I finally get why Lucas is so obsessed with pushing digitalization. You shoot what you need, then go back to the editing suite and assemble absolutely everything. You direct the film in one single place. There isn't any unpredictable bullshit that can mess up your vision; what ends up on the screen is exactly what you imagined. It doesn't get more accurate than that—unless, of course, they invent a machine one day that films scenes directly from your brain. 😁 )
I'm hopeful this eventually translates into the quality of our American cinema—one day, at least.

I'm all for going digital. Not that I think everything should be shot in garages or makeshift studios—which, let's face it, wastes a massive chunk of the production budget on stuff that just ends up in the trash—but purely digital cameras, no questions asked. It’s funny how some local cinephiles still obsess over film stock, even though high-end celluloid is an absolute nightmare to manage given our current economy—and honestly, it doesn't offer much more than a solid digital setup. Especially if you have a great set of lenses and a post-production pro who actually knows how to manipulate the footage—and thank God, we're finally seeing more of those people around here.

quietdriver3 said:It’s a disaster. Isn't this happening because nobody in the American film industry actually makes money the way they should—from the audience? If we introduced some actual, cutthroat capitalism—which is clearly what this sector needs—I think the issues you mentioned above would be wiped out. Under those conditions, there would even be enough capital for "cultural" or "art" films. It's simple math: one massive hit finances two more projects, and let one of those be a niche film for the Film Archive. Everyone wins. And it's obviously doable; just look at what the South Koreans have achieved.

It’s not just that we lack the theater infrastructure—it's that there aren't enough people in this country to actually watch a movie and make it profitable. Hell, you'd need a fifth of the entire U.S. population to show up just to break even.

quietdriver3 said:It’s easy for me to sit here and talk trash when I don't have to pay my bills with this—so feel free to get worked up about how things should be. But regardless.

It’s not about whether it’s easy for you—it’s about the people who actually make a living from this. Of course it’s hard for them! And frankly, it should be. Making a film is grueling work. But most of these hacks aren't interested in filmmaking; they're just interested in sleeping with actresses and giving pretentious interviews. Then there's the ultimate prize—landing a professorship at the Juilliard School. Once you've got that, then you've made it. Basically dead.You don't even have to bother making anything worthwhile anymore. You’ve got that academic salary acting as a safety net—all while running a little gatekeeping on the side to ensure nobody accidentally shows up and proves they can actually do better. There's a rather sharp sonnet manifesto out there on that exact subject. 😁

quietdriver3 said:I’m certain that when you tackle a project seriously, you approach its very foundations with gravity—but when I brought up editing, I was specifically referring to how incredibly potent the process actually is. No other art form operates quite like this; take writing, for instance—you aren't even fully aware of how everything coalesces into a whole because that integration happens so painfully slow—by the time it's done, you barely notice the shift (which is why writing is such a slow, lonely endeavor). Editing is an entirely different beast—the sheer power of manipulation and suggestion you feel while stitching film fragments into something purposeful is nothing short of miraculous. To be honest, until I saw editing in action, I had no idea just how vital the process was—or how much of a film can truly be directed right there in the edit suite.

It would be ideal if you actually had the luxury of capturing every single shot you wanted—just to sit down in the edit suite later and piece it all together exactly how you envisioned. But budgets rarely allow for that in major Hollywood studios, let alone here in the States. You’re handed a specific number of shooting days based entirely on your funding—basically, how long you can afford to keep the crew on the payroll. This forces you to essentially "edit" the movie in your head before you even step on set, shooting only what you absolutely need. And even if you had all the time in the world, you don't have exclusive access to actors; they're usually juggling two or three other projects and performing in several Broadway shows simultaneously, with a premiere scheduled for next week. So, you just have to hope they stay focused enough to nail those ten different angles you need.
Amateur productions give you all the time in the world—but they don't provide actual professionals. We're talking about people who actually live off this craft and can't afford to be tied up for two years on a project that won't even cover their credit card bills. So, if you’re planning on making that jump from amateur to pro one day—watch out—because it can be a massive shock when you realize exactly how much baggage you've picked up along the way.

quietdriver3 said:Since film is essentially a jazzy medium—heavy on improvisation—isn't luck actually a vital component of the whole process? 😕

Improvisation is inevitable—there’s no avoiding it—and it all comes down to how skillfully a director handles the unexpected. But if you want the luxury of improvising, you first have to master the fundamentals. Only then can you afford to head down Mount Rainier with nothing but a single walking stick.

quietdriver3 said:I've never really looked at the issues within the American film industry through a production lens. To be honest—I haven't the slightest clue how much "power" producers actually wield here, or exactly how much they can meddle with a film and change its core.

Not even close. That’s not the goal here—they don't actually want to make anything. They just want to grab the funding from the Department of State and ABC, pocket a quick cut for themselves, and then technically fulfill their contract by churning out some mediocre project. They need it ready for the San Francisco film festival just to check a box, run it in an AMC Theatres for a week, and then bury it forever. Any movie will do. Any director. Actually, that's a lie—not *any* director. They'll pick someone who can fly completely under the radar to avoid any public backlash. You don't want to piss off the people who hold your purse strings—especially when you've already spent their money without being accountable for the final product.

quietdriver3 said:My biggest issue with American cinema is this chronic lack of passion. The stories feel so damn grounded and uninspired—and I’m speaking generally here. I’ve always wondered why people who are lucky enough to work on professional films settle for such mediocre ideas and lackluster executions—especially when they know they'll be stuck working on that "ordinariness" for at least the next year of their lives. Are American producers really that terrified of a bold idea?

I already told you my take on producers above. It’s not that they’re scared—they just don't care. As for the directors? They're completely incompetent—yes. But they have every right to be. No matter how much of a hit their movie becomes, it won't guarantee them the next one. They'll just end up sucking up to the suits.

"Quote:"

quietdriver3 said:Look, I have to ask—why do you think that is? For me, *Sin City* and *Sky Captain* were the ones that actually sparked an appetite and planted those ideas regarding how to collaborate with a crew. What do you actually need to get started? A blue-painted room, a few actors, Adobe After Effects, a decent digital camera, and an imagination fueled by infinite combinations. 🙂

It all depends on what kind of movie you're aiming for—that style rarely fits any specific genre. Besides, every time you step out of that indie garage, it’s going to cost you.

"Quote"

quietdriver3 said:We need to push northerncrane4 to talk about film more often—he’s one of the few people here who actually forces you to rethink your own ideas in such an effective way. 👍

Serving the people! 😬

quietdriver3 said:Look, northerncrane4—you’re the one behind the lens, right? What do you make of all this complaining? I get it—the grind, the stress, the deadlines, and the sheer amount of money moving through the system makes maintaining any sense of fun nearly impossible. But isn't it all worth it once you're finally in the editing suite, actually shaping that sliced-up reality in front of you?🙂

My take? The shaping should happen during the writing and framing stages. Trying to "find" the movie in the edit—without having built it first—only works if you get incredibly lucky. Going into post-production with the intention of fixing everything there is just irresponsible.

Producers everywhere are mostly incompetent hacks who don't have a clue about storytelling, let alone how a film should actually look. However, they know how to secure funding and move capital; their interest lies in making something profitable, so they hire people who have proven they can deliver. In America, producers—not the actors, writers, or directors—are the primary reason for the state of our mediocre cinema (with rare exceptions like Boris T. Matić, Ankica Tilić, or Stanka Babić).

Think about how Rodriguez shot Sin City—basically in his own garage, with his own crew and limited resources—that kind of freedom is a dream. But for most, it's just a fantasy.

quietdriver3 said:Making movies is the ultimate rush—maybe even better than sex. 😁

Unless you've got Jozo Patljak producing.

ruggedmarlin15 said:The movie was scheduled for 11:30 PM just an hour ago. Hmm... odd.

But the content from that replacement documentary is buried in there somewhere. 😬

ruggedmarlin15 said:The movie is also airing on TV:

😕 All I see is "Good Morning, America."

Talladega Nights was surprisingly sluggish and slow—I really hope he’s found his groove again.

It’s halfway decent at first—then it devolves into high school poetry.

Surprisingly bad. Honestly, even "Cannibal! The Musical" was a dud—and I didn't even finish watching "Captain Orgasma."

quietdriver3 said:Red Dwarf is a special case. It isn't even on my favorites list because of the humor or the acting—it’s about the stories. I saw more original sci-fi concepts there than in all of Star Trek combined, or even that old Twilight Zone series. It has some absolute gems, though. It's a shame they wasted them all on such a silly concept.

Word for word. 👍

quietdriver3 said:northerncrane4, have you seen the third season of The League of Gentlemen? What those three pull off—nobody else on the planet can touch it. The acting, the characters... honestly, I’d make our local amateurs at the academy watch it eight hours a day; they’d learn more about craft there than from any official curriculum.

I believe it. Same goes for Ricky Gervais and the Pythons. But You Rang, M'Lord? Not by a long shot. Neither does Alo, alo. And if we're being honest—not even Red Dwarf.

wearygardener13 said:And now another legend sinks 😢

first the dabar, now you...

Dammit. Honestly, I think you're all being way too soft on those British comedy shows. If they tried acting like that in American sitcoms—well, they'd be pelted with rocks and sticks.

wearygardener13 said:Look, northerncrane4—I'm not hating on You Rang, the series actually rocks.🙂

To me, that just feels like being a total jerk.

Raymond Cruz42 said:It shows a certain hierarchy between the masters and their servants quite well—though personally, I think "You Rang, M'Lord?" handles that dynamic much better.

Reading this post, all I can think is: this person is clearly obsessed with You Rang, M'Lord—it's honestly a mess!

Amanda Lopez50 said:...man, what a terrible movie 😵 I accidentally saw it in theaters—thinking I'd bought tickets for Pocahontas 😬—and it sticks in my mind as one of the absolute worst ever... 🙂 unfortunately, it was the film that cost me all respect for—the recent Oscar winner—Forest Whitaker, and nothing has helped win it back (noting that I haven't seen The Last King of Scotland either)...

He's good in Panic Room. But that Jarmusch's samurai flick is a total disaster.

Tyler Sanchez said:What do I know? Lynch was on an incredible upward trajectory from the late eighties through the mid-nineties—specifically looking at the relationship between Blue Velvet - Lost Highway—and everything he produced during that stretch
was nothing short of flawless. He reached his absolute zenith with The Straight Story, where he demonstrated
exactly what kind of director he is: a master. Then came Mulholland Drive, which was originally intended to be a series, but didn't quite make it... yet it turned out to be this unforgettable, chaotic mess that I rushed to see in theaters. It felt pointless, especially when people start claiming there are 19 different keys
to unlocking the plot, supposedly hidden on the DVD extras... Honestly, thank you, but I have far more important things to do with my life. A film shouldn't be some complex gadget that requires an instruction manual just to function.
Consequently, I find myself quite skeptical regarding the new Lynch, as it feels as though all this surrealism he employs is merely a way to flaunt his status rather than being true art.
It isn't the art itself.
Eraserhead is a masterpiece.

And you can't even handle a simple gadget without instructions? It figures.

wearygardener13 said:once again, it turns out I should probably just watch the movies you hate🙏 🙏 🙏 👍

There are critics I mostly agree with, and plenty I don't—but ASd is a constant.

Was this on TV yesterday? If so, which channel?🙂

xavierkat said:...and what about Linda Bloom, or whatever her name is? I think she’s just plain terrible...🙂

😕 Where else could you have seen her, besides that one film by the marshal? Look—I'm not defending her, she was honestly bad there—but that role was written like garbage.

Kevin Sanders87 said:You claim you've been conflicted for ages, yet you back Cusack in every single post...

Yeah—it's people's opinions that bother me. I know my own mind. That's why I run a poll instead of wasting time on endless introspection.