Posts by northerncrane4

Maria Peterson said:Wait—are you actually suggesting that producers in the States don't invest their own capital?

The US actually has a functioning market.

Maria Peterson said:(I was thinking of trading something for film placement under that "it costs more elsewhere" logic)

Sure—but we're talking about something trivial, like wallpaper. Something they'd use to cover the blinds at Paramount Pictures studios. Or a producer might pocket the difference to renovate his own house—because apparently, he needs it. But no one’s going to try to pay a talent with wallpaper instead of a paycheck.

Maria Peterson said:What kind of producer is that?! I thought he was investing his own cash and scouting talent elsewhere!

Let’s be real—why would they? Producers aren't enthusiasts; they're opportunists. They aren't crazy enough to sink their own capital into this, and they can't just go "scouting" around—nobody is handing out money to them. At most, you might see some product placement deals—trading goods for screen time—but actual cash? Not a chance.

Maria Peterson said:What about someone like Maloča? I assumed he wasn't part of that top tier of producers—but again, that’s just my assumption, since I don't have any insider info or anything.

Maloča gets his funding from either the Department of the Interior or PBS. If their payments are late, his fees are late too. Or—if they're being particularly slow—he just takes out a loan from the bank.

Maria Peterson said:Both. But let's just say what a producer can learn on a global scale via IMDb, they won't find out regarding how things actually work in this neck of the woods.

In this environment, "producers" are really just the Department of the Interior and PBS—everyone else calling themselves a producer is merely an executive handling funds provided by those two. They pocket their cut first, kick back some under-the-table cash to the folks at the Department or PBS who greenlit the project, and then split whatever’s left among the crew. You might find outliers—like Joe Biden—but when you crunch the numbers, it always circles back to the same old pattern.

Maria Peterson said:Look, I'm curious about what a producer actually does—besides just collecting a paycheck.
What does it actually mean when someone claims, "I produced this film."

Are you asking about how things work here in the States, or on a global scale?

Lali Puna said:Why would it be a step down if Šovagović ventured into social commentary or criticism?
I'm actually rooting for it!

He’s got a weekly column in the "New York Post"—so maybe rethink whether you actually want this. Philip lacks both the erudition and the insight required for such work. He's got too much chaos going on in his head; he should just stick to what he knows.

Terry Ramos60 said:even though everyone keeps insisting that Šovagović didn't actually aim his satire at society—that he just needs more discipline, and if he did, he could be a brilliant social satirist

I’m not making that claim. In fact—I'm terrified of that exact possibility. 😎

Brian Williams said:Look—I have zero clue how this movie actually came together—maybe the director was lounging in the Caribbean while the crew did all the heavy lifting—but the film is excellent. Simply excellent. 😁 And yeah, most American films are total garbage; I haven't seen them all, so I won't pretend to be an expert, but of the ones I have watched, almost none of them hit the mark... except for Matanić. Though, even then, "Love you" was terrible for me, and "One hundred minutes of glory" was way too over-the-top in its direction—even if Sanja Vejnović was great, though I didn't sit through much of it.

Essentially, American cinema is going through some kind of renaissance right now. 😍

"That wonderful Split night" wasn't my cup of tea either, and the last one to actually surprise me was "House of hanging"—it’s incredibly suggestive, even if it isn't American, though it comes from a similar cultural sphere...

You're digging that Q-tip way too deep into your ear.

Terry Ramos60 said:but, again, not enough for me to call the movie great.

In reality—it’s best described as "significant." 😎>

Terry Ramos60 said:Yeah, so this movie will probably just stay misunderstood to me forever—never gonna be a masterpiece in my eyes.

The solution isn't to "understand" it through its "plot"—it's to view it as an entry in what we call "American cinema." What Jurak fails to grasp is that the sheer presence of Filip Šovagović in all those films—which ended up being incomprehensible regardless of what the directors intended—is exactly what created this intentional nonsense. It didn't just "happen" to Filip Šovagović; he did it on purpose. You see the difference?

Lali Puna said:you missed the point. I'm not complaining about things being handed to me on a silver platter—that's not it. It's just that I had to really strain myself to figure out the character dynamics—who's doing what for whom, and why. Or who's actually with who. Two characters talk, and suddenly I have no clue what their relationship even is—or what they would be in real life.
I don't know if that’s because I tuned out during the first ten minutes or if it was actually designed that way.
If it *was* intentional, then why? I'll admit there might be some deeper meaning I'm just not catching. So, if the director intended for basic character details to be obscure, what's the purpose behind that? I'm not even going to pretend I figured it out—I didn't—so I'm asking for clarification here. Is that really too much to ask?

I wasn't taking shots at you. 🙂
The film has a pretty straightforward plot—one that isn't made any clearer by the sheer amount of scenes included. It's highly likely you didn't miss much in those first ten minutes; most of that section consists of three or four soliloquies which, while well-executed individually, aren't strictly necessary to follow the story.

Terry Ramos60 said:—but why on earth is everything so incomprehensible?

I don't get "Love in the Hinterland"—not that I understood "Mary Villa" either—and don't even get me started on "Forbidden Love" or those trashy reality shows. Yet, they air every single day and pull massive ratings.

casualharbor852 said:the movie is great—if it weren't quite so messy, it wouldn't just be good, it would be a masterpiece...

What’s that supposed to mean? The film's greatest strength is precisely that it dares to be this messy. If it were any more polished, it would just be some pretentious social satire—God forbid.

And right during the era when they were releasing "Long, dark night" too! 🙂

Through thick and thin... You can't just buy your way to health! 😁

casualharbor852 said:Let me see this comedy of errors you're talking about.

That isn't a "comedy of errors"—it’s a comedy of the absurd. Personally, I love it. I especially have to point out the scene where Vejzović, Brankov, and Cvetko doći Vulić show up right on Vulić's doorstep. 😂 👍

David Price5 said:Just remember—Return of the King swept the Academy Awards for the whole trilogy...

Exactly. Just like The Godfather Part III.

brightscout63 said:I suspect there’s some manipulation going on—certainly some tampering—but you can't fake everything. You simply can't rig all 5,476 Academy members, or however many they claim there are.

And who exactly is counting those 5,476 votes—or whatever that number is?

casualotter21 said:It’s the usual routine with a film—a total flame war where one side calls it mindless trash while the other insists it's highbrow intellectual art.

I don't think it's stupid, nor do I think it's for intellectuals. I just flame. 😬

Just to set the record straight—no child of Satan should have ever emerged from the tomb of Saint Didacus. There wasn't even a plan to film any scenes featuring Damien at these US locations. These sites were meant to represent excavations in Israel, where we only intended to film a few brief walkthroughs with two actors. All permits were fully cleared by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.