Posts by slyrider16

Just go serve your time whenever you feel like it. It's pretty much a given that they aren't getting rid of it or even shortening it anytime soon. All those announcements over the last decade—maybe five or six of them? Just pure talk. At best, it's just some politician in D.C. trying to score points... total self-inflicted wounds if you ask me. The earliest this could actually happen is if there’s a massive shift in power during the next election and someone finally has the guts to propose it seriously. And even then, once it passes, it'll take another year or two to actually implement. Like I said, don't hold your breath... it's not happening anytime soon.

They already did a press screening for this, so it’ll probably drop any second now—maybe even today. I’m just waiting on confirmation before I get too hyped...

The movie is solid, PSH is great, NBA is top-tier, everything works. Guess since it isn't a biopic they didn't have to follow some boring template... Personally, I'd put it right behind Crash for my second favorite of the five Best Picture nominees...

I’m just sitting here waiting for those guys in China to finally get over it... CT, HD, then Hero, it’s all the same old crap... 😢

Basically everything except taxes should be baked into that $80 million box office number. I figure the DVD and TV licensing will easily cover the rest. But if anyone has a better breakdown of the costs vs. revenue—maybe using an example like some indie hit or whatever—please drop it here. (And let’s leave out toy tie-ins and stuff, since that doesn't apply to every flick)

The real giveaway is how the animation department split off ages ago. It's pretty obvious they already assumed the live-action side was going under and didn't want to throw good money after bad...

As for them not churning out enough movies, I'm not so sure about that. I mean, other studios haven't been pumping out massive amounts either, yet they're still standing. I'm talking about outfits like Paramount, Universal, or New Line...

Cash flow has been their nightmare from day one. They just didn't have the capital to build out a full-scale studio with all the infrastructure you need. I heard a rumor that Bill Gates promised to fund them for the first six years, but once he hit the half-billion mark, he changed his mind and bailed. You can see the struggle in all those heavy co-productions with other studios. Usually, you don't do that unless it's a tiny indie flick—either they're fighting over who owns the rights and end up splitting production, or they don't actually believe the movie will land and want to hedge their bets by sharing the cost. And come on, nobody's telling me Minority Report or War of the Worlds was a gamble. It was obvious they were gonna print money. Clearly, the reason for those co-productions was just that they lacked the cash to pull it off solo.

If you wanna reach Kozza, hit me up at catcher_in_the_sky@yahoo.com. It's basically my spam folder anyway, so I don't care about posting it publicly like this. 😁

The Island might have been the catalyst, but I'm not sure if it was the actual cause. Honestly, I think at the end of the day, home video sales and TV rights could save this movie. Budget was 126 mil, throw in another 40 mil for marketing and distribution... and worldwide box office hit 160 mil (so that's about 80 mil going straight to DreamWorks). Usually, the home video market pulls in at least as much as the theaters. And isn't it crazy how nowadays you make double or triple on video compared to the big screen? It's almost certain that long-term, the film will break even, even if it doesn't make a massive profit.

Two things just don't add up to me. Why didn't they take the Shrek money to help out the live-action division?? Instead, it’s the exact opposite—Walt Disney Animation Studios is its own separate entity, they weren't sold off and they're still doing their own thing.

And the other thing... how did they not have their own studio lot????? I remember that PlayVista plan from back in the day, that never happened... but I still figured they would've built some soundstages or a proper studio lot. Now I find out they didn't. They were constantly paying other people (supposedly spending most of their time over at Universal Studios) just to use their soundstages.

I don't get it. They were burning through cash way faster than they were making it, hit an $800 million debt hole, and this was basically their only lifeline. Since they were tightest with Paramount anyway, it kind of makes sense that Paramount would be the one to swoop in. But seriously, if guys like Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen—who are supposed to be the ultimate Hollywood insiders—can't run a semi-successful studio, then who can?? I’ve always dreamed of someone handing me like $10 billion 😁 just so I could build my own media empire from the ground up, but if the competition is so brutal that even a DreamWorks can't make it, what's even the point? Is making profitable movies really that damn hard?? Looking at the home video revenue numbers, you'd have to be a total moron to let a movie lose money. And no matter how much you respect Spielberg, he definitely isn't a moron.

You totally missed my point, Jose Miller17. You can throw in more—or even everything—from a director if they hit our criteria. Like, Lang’s M and Metropolis definitely both belong on here. The whole idea is to be academic about it... strip away your personal bias and just stick to the heavy hitters you'd actually see in a film school syllabus. (my bad, Gerald Barrett25 😢 )

As for that 1001 Movies book, I've got it right here, and honestly, it's alright. (even if it doesn't always explain WHY a movie made the cut) But 1001 films is way too much for a "crash course" list like this thread is trying to be. At a decent pace, it would take you 3 to 5 years just to get through them all. This list needs to be a condensed version... maybe just the top 50 to 100 essentials. 😛

So, here's what we've got so far (though we really need to add a quick sentence explaining why each one is on there 😁)

1895 Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat by the Lumière brothers
1902 A Trip to the Moon by Georges Méliès
1915 Birth of a Nation by D.W. Griffith
1920 The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari by Robert Wiene
1921 The Kid by Chaplin
1922 Nosferatu by Murnau
1925 Battleship Potemkin by Eisenstein
1926 Metropolis by Lang
1927 Sunrise by Murnau
1929 Un Chien Andalou by Buñuel
2029 Man with a Movie Camera by Vertov
1931 M by Lang
1935 Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl

I'm suggesting we debate adding some of these (but which ones??)
The Gold Rush - Chaplin 1925
The Big Parade - Widor 1925
All Quiet on the Western Front - Lewis Milestone 1930
City Lights - Chaplin 1931
Frankenstein - Whale 1931
King Kong - Cooper 1933
Duck Soup - McCarey 1933
The 39 Steps - Hitchcock 1935
Modern Times - Chaplin 1936
Grand Illusion - Renoir 1937
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - Disney 1937
Stagecoach - Ford 1939
And if we have to pick something from Fleming (especially since it's the same year), wouldn't The Wizard of Oz make more sense than Gone with the Wind? Anyone disagree? 😛

That’s a massive stretch if we’re talking directors. You could easily pull a thousand movies out of a hat from the dawn of cinema until now. Plus, even the legends have their flops. Or sometimes a movie is decent, but only one or two people actually did something meaningful with it.

I didn't want to put a hard cap on it... but if I have to pick a number, let's say there are at least 100 essentials you gotta see (ignoring everything from the 90s onwards) just to actually grasp film as an art form and a craft.

Anyone else want to throw some titles onto the pre-1940 list before we move on to the 1941–1950 era? 😛

Yeah, total nerd move, that’s exactly what I was thinking! 🙂 So you're basically playing professor, telling the kids what they need to watch to actually be called cinephiles. It’d be cool if this thread stayed alive, people dropping movies and then someone (like me, I'll do it) organizes them by year so we have a chronological guide to film history. We'd probably end up with a hundred movies eventually, but whatever. Nobody’s even mentioned the Italians yet? Or the Germans...
And I see everyone just ignored the "up to 1990" part from the start. 😁 Typical forum crowd, lol.

Let's try this instead, maybe it's easier: from the Lumière brothers up to the end of the 30s—so, through 1940. What's been filmed that belongs in our guide? And again, not just Hollywood, I mean global cinema.

So far we've got:

A Trip to the Moon 1902
The Birth of a Nation 1915
Battleship Potemkin 1925
Sunrise 1926
M 1931
Triumph of the Will 1935

We're missing Fritz Lang, Chaplin, a ton of silent films, basically. Maybe even Gone with the Wind. You guys agree that needs to go on the list?

Where the hell is the dinner scene with the family??? That was my favorite part of the original, and they just cut it out here!!!!! Absolute robbery!!! 😁 And they didn't even include Leatherface cursing when he swerves, you know, struggling with that heavy bike trying to make a sharp turn... hehehe, those were the classic moments in the original and they're totally missing here. 😢

Caught it, and I was the only one in the theater. 😁 Never had that happen before. Usually there's at least a handful of people, but being totally solo in a Broadway cinema... that's a first. Whatever though... honestly, this is his best Cronenberg work since The Fly, maybe even better since I was just a kid back then.
Anyway, that final scene hit hard. It really ties everything together, and Viggo Mortensen's eyes were basically the definition of "hope." That part where he feeds them was pretty pathetic—I wouldn't be surprised if he swallowed a little girl too, but the stuff with his son went way too far.

The title is a bit messy, but here’s the deal:
List some movies—and if you can, give me a quick one-sentence breakdown of why they made the cut—from the dawn of cinema up through 1990. Try NOT to be subjective (as dumb as that sounds) and instead focus on the essentials you'd actually study in an American film school. Sure, watching everything is better, but let's not get crazy... just the ones that shaped what "cinema" actually means today across all those decades.
I could go first, but I'm stuck on what to pick, so I figured I'd open this thread and let you experts weigh in. 😁

Gerald Barrett25 said:It’s not terrible... with talent like yours, you could defend pretty much any movie by Jakob Sedlar... especially that phrase it’s totally fine for that genre 😉 😁

Sedlar is indefensible. Unless "Jakob Sedlar movies" is actually its own tiny little subgenre. 😁

Gerald Barrett25 said://ps. also thanks for the sharp breakdown, I can definitely use that when my girl asks why she shouldn't bother watching this flick😬

If she's into girly movies, she'll probably dig this since it feels better made than your average trash in that category. As for the guys—aka you, 😁—there's enough funny bits and maybe 15 minutes of half-naked C. Diaz scattered throughout to keep you from passing out... 🙂

So I wasn't far off when I said Polanski might've just been honing his craft to stay sharp, especially if the whole point was that Dickens was The Desire to make a film his children could see for a Change. That’s hardly a motivation a filmmaker can brag about if they actually care about more than just making an industrial product...

And all this nonsense about UNICEF is typical for any actor during a press tour, always trying to pin some "higher purpose" on their movie. This Romanov adaptation doesn't even really critique society or try to highlight issues with abandoned kids. To him, it felt more like some kind of adventure...

Whatever, the real issue is the premise and the script itself, so I'm "only" blaming Polanski for picking a bad project.

Alright, gonna answer Gerald Barrett25 since he felt the need to get all polite with me on that Oliver Twist thread. 😁

The whole point of this movie is just making bank. Period. You could overanalyze it and say maybe Hanson wanted to try his hand at a different genre since he hasn't done a chick flick before... or maybe he was aiming to turn a basic Hollywood script into something actually decent... whatever. Look, I watched it. It’s fine for what it is. Funny, easy to watch, though the ending gets a little pathetic... but it doesn't really offer anything new. Just a solid, standard genre exercise.

I honestly don't get this movie. What was Polanski even trying to achieve with this adaptation? I have no clue. All I can say is what it did to me—absolutely nothing. Total indifference... I haven't read the book, but my gut feeling while watching was that the adaptation is just way too literal, sticking far too close to the original. (Well, obviously with some parts cut or condensed, which is fine). The issue is that the original deals with themes and motives that feel so recycled that nothing feels fresh anymore. Watching it, everything on screen felt so overdone and predictable that any chance of actually connecting emotionally was dead on arrival. To me, the film is just empty. Technically it's fine, but that’s basically become the baseline expected standard now. Either Polanski (and everyone else) should stay away from these classics and pick something that actually challenges them, instead of being lazy or—at best—just practicing their craft so they don't get rusty...

northerncrane4 said:Exactly. And it's because his take on protagonists is just straight-up stereotypical.

But given how little time they actually give the characters (not the plot) to breathe, there wasn't much choice. You gotta lean on stereotypes to get the point across fast. The issue here is we aren't watching some lighthearted comedy like *American Pie*, we're looking at a movie with actual artistic ambitions. The writer of *The Bourne Identity* shouldn't have let that slide. Less nitpicking about the plot and more breathing room between those plot beats—giving more screen time to the two leads and their dynamic—and they'd be on the right track...

northerncrane4 said:There isn't a single shot in this movie that hasn't been color-graded. Nothing wrong with contrasting New York City and Africa, but it felt repetitive. Just my take, based on the whole thing.

Look, there's hardly any movie today—unless it's amateur hour or some indie dogma crap—where every frame isn't color-corrected at least a little bit. You said it only started getting under your skin as you watched, but the movie does this from the very first frame, super consistently. Honestly, it's either all or nothing with stuff like that. Maybe it was something else bugging you, like the plot issues over the character work, and once that frustration set in, everything else just started looking bad too...

I haven't actually read the book, so I can't say much about how the novel stacks up or what John le Carré's style is really like. But honestly, an adaptation can go any which way. It wasn't even that I had an issue with them trying to build a bridge between the audience and the characters—it’s just that they never actually finished building it. The plot basically swallowed everything else whole... the movie rushed into all those conspiracies and political thriller tropes way too fast.

Anyway, if you're talking about the visuals, that cold, sterile white New York City vibe versus the vibrant colors of Africa works pretty well, at least. I didn't really catch any other weird color grading issues. It's definitely "in your face," but it makes sense for the story. If I had one gripe, maybe they could've been a little more subtle with the color palette... but whatever.

Didn't see this on my list so, uh, just dropping a few thoughts here. It was hyped up like crazy when it hit US theaters, basically getting the best reviews of the year... so yeah, I went to the cinema to check it out.

You can tell Meirelles is doing her thing; visually, it feels like a spiritual successor to City of God. Some of those editing sequences are styled almost identical to City of God—not sure if it's the same editor, but the director clearly loves that vibe, even if they overdo it in The Bourne Identity... like that hyper-intense cooking sequence.

On one hand, the movie is an ode to Africa, with this gritty documentary feel. Shaky cam everywhere, which gets annoying sometimes—especially during the New York City scenes where a steady shot would’ve worked better as a contrast to Africa. It’s just jittery and hard to follow through a simple lunch scene. Plus, the themes feel docu-style, from the landscapes to the people and modern African life, from the slums in their "megacities" to remote villages left behind by tech. On the other hand, there's supposed to be a core romance. But there isn't. And that totally kills the believability.

The main plot involving big pharma and a conspiracy could be super interesting on its own (and it is, mostly), but the characters meant to lead us through it—Fiennes and Weisz—are pretty thin. They don't get nearly enough screen time to establish their relationship. Since the whole plot unfolds through the lens of their love, that connection needed more breathing room to actually work. Honestly, I felt more for Jack and Rose in Titanic than I did for these two. Just watching them against those African landscapes could have easily carried the film for another thirty minutes if needed.

I will say, the way the plot unfolds is good. It's slow, step-by-step, almost like the genre shifts from start to finish until it's basically a straight-up political thriller. The directing handles that transition well, though some parts lean a bit too hard into action/thriller territory when they don't need to. But the conspiracy itself is convincing; it feels like it's based on a real news report (kind of like Traffic) rather than a John le Carré thriller. Such a shame about the romance at the start, though. If that had worked, the whole movie could've been a higher rating... Still, worth a watch. There aren't enough political dramas/thrillers lately.

Who even said Terminator 1 was bad? Not me. Like I said in my first post, anything Cameron makes is at least decent... If I had to pick his weakest out of all those good ones, it’d be the first Terminator.

As for Aliens, of course some people are gonna hate it because it's one of the few sequels that actually tries something new instead of just remaking the first movie with a bigger budget. It’s got similar characters and themes, sure, but the whole vibe is different—it's a different genre entirely! Alien is pure horror, while Aliens is more like an action-drama...