coastalpanther43, you're spot on, but the issue is that last third of the film is just garbage. Instead of leaning into the obvious betrayal with over-the-top action scenes and characters flipping into those typical Hollywood clichés, they should've gone way more subtle. Why couldn't that last third be handled seriously instead of being all tongue in cheek? Why not approach it like a legitimate action thriller? That way, the audience would actually catch what the poet was trying to say much later—maybe even right at the end (which would've been perfect). As it stands, after maybe 5-10 minutes, you already figure out where Kaufman is going with this movie, and while that’s all well and good, you're stuck with another 20 minutes of watching a dead horse being beaten. Long story short: they needed a serious approach, respect for the thriller genre (even if it's being parodied), and SUBTLETY.
Your take on the third act is basically what I’m thinking, especially regarding what Kaufman was actually trying to say. It really just comes down to taste, and honestly, people can argue about that forever. 😉 At the end of the day, we're back to the same old question: does a movie stop being bad if it's intentionally bad for a specific reason? It feels like Kaufman just decided to lean into some clichés instead of completely flipping the script in those last 30 minutes to make the whole thing more digestible. I get it, the idea of having a third act like that—after promising us that stuff is garbage and he'd never do it—might look cool on paper... but it was just too much for me. Like, 30 minutes of tongue-in-cheek nonsense, basically saying "look at me doing exactly what I said was crap"... it was a bit much... I was just waiting for the actors to break the fourth wall and start smirking at the audience. Whatever... thanks to how well-written the first two thirds were and that gorgeous direction throughout—I still walked away feeling pretty good about it.
driftingowl27 said:...which is most obvious in the last third of the film, which—weird as it sounds—is actually a super logical ending. (assuming you ignore all those tired tropes Hollywood has been leaning on lately to cover up bad writing).
Can you give me some actual examples of those tropes from the last third along with how you'd interpret them? Also, please explain how shitty parts of a script suddenly stop being shitty just because the movie admits they're shitty...
Richard Hernandez13 said:Néstor Almendros "Days of Heaven" ( by Terence Malick )
Man, I'd kill to see that one in 70mm.
hell no. unless movie quality exponentially jumps just because the film strip gets bigger, I’d never bother spending the cash. like, Badlands is mostly alright, The Thin Red Line is a mix of genius and total ugh moments, but Days of Heaven... that's just a boring movie made in a boring way. 😢
Not to go totally off topic though—yeah, the cinematography is gorgeous. Honestly, it's the only redeeming thing about the whole thing... even then, that "pretty wheat field" effect only goes so far before you've seen a hundred identical shots in a row...
The FBI is great and all, but do they cover your film stock and production costs too?
As for advice, I'm guessing you've already cut your teeth on some "indie" shorts and video work. Storyboards can help, sure, but unless you're planning to be a total slave to the visuals, I wouldn't say they're that vital. If you feel like sketching—go for it. 🙂 If not, just pray you're on the same wavelength as the DNC. 🙂 Mind if I ask, just a little bit, what this movie is actually about? What's the vibe? Any specific ideas for the storytelling or the cinematography style?
Yeah, we know a thing or two about a sequel, legion. But honestly? You’re gonna hate it.
Sony wouldn't mind a follow-up if it stays dirt cheap. Phil Tippett—the guy who was the Industrial Light & Magic supervisor on Starship Troopers—actually pitched Sony this idea for a low-budget flick... he was talking more along the lines of "scary horror like Alien" rather than the massive action vibes from the first one. So, whatever they make, it definitely won't be what you're hoping for. And yeah, none of the original cast is coming back either... actually, thinking about it, maybe that's for the best. 😁
🙏 🙏 🙏 to all you geniuses out there who finally realized just how massive The Emperor's New Groove is!!!!
"That's why I don't get how they managed to make The Emperor's New Groove, which is basically the most genius thing ever 😁"
most genius? obviously. best Western animation ever. and how did they pull it off? it's because the Disney executives actually let people do whatever they wanted for once. anyone following this knows that about a year before Groove, the project was called 'Empire in the Sun'—a movie with similar themes and characters, but way more serious, sappy, and, well, "Disney." luckily, the film was so bad that even the Disney execs wanted to pull the plug on the whole thing. then Mark Dindal and Chris Williams (who were already on the original project) step in and say: we can save this. there's plenty of good material here. we'll just cut the film down, flip the story, change the genre, animate 40 new minutes, and it'll be fine. in a rare moment of Hollywood lucidity, Disney actually agrees. and by some miracle, they stop meddling in the creative process. we all saw the result... 🙏 🙏 🙏
I don't usually weigh in on stuff like this, but I just caught the trailer for this flick. My god, it’s painful. Not talking about the actual movie yet—who knows if it'll be any good—but you'd think a massive machine like Hillary Swank would at least put together a decent teaser... instead, it's a total disaster on IMDb : Core. The premise feels forced, there aren't even any decent money shots, you can't tell what's actually happening, and the whole thing looks cheap... honestly, it's giving me major Armageddon remake vibes...
Flying?? ugh, you seriously want me to regret skipping out that day? 😉
Anyway, the one thing I don't get about this whole Oscar and Hayao Miyazaki thing is this: based on what you're saying, it sounds like they basically stole the movie from him. Like he didn't even want it adapted for Americans... so who actually signed the contract? The Japanese producers?
why is Hayao Miyazaki such a jerk? hmmm... maybe I'd actually get him IF: Disney is hiding the fact that SA isn't even their movie, they're trying so hard not to mention Hayao Miyazaki, and the money side of the deal means Miyazaki won't see a single cent... wait a sec, we're talking about Hollywood here... so this is totally possible. 😁
Just watched this thing and honestly... I'm disappointed. To be fair, I went in totally blind, so it's hard to say if I had massive expectations or whatever. The issue is probably that it's just another high-concept flick. Trying to mimic those old 50s movies is a neat trick, but it doesn't make FFH actually good. If you peel back that stylistic layer, there's basically nothing left. It’s nothing we haven't seen before, and nothing we haven't seen done better somewhere else. And if anyone tries to argue that the 50s setting is essential because of the racial tension themes, I'd say that's secondary—the writer just used it as an excuse to give the lead character some internal drama. Whatever, my bad. The movie looks great, sure, though the audio is a mess since I can't stand that LOUD AND OVERWROUGHT music they used in that era. The directing is sharp and the acting is decent... but it's all so shallow. Like, what's even the point???
The movie is more or less based on a true story. After Being John Malkovich, C. Kaufman actually worked on an Adaptation of the book Orchid Thief. He realized he had zero clue how to adapt it, so he just took his own struggles with the project and turned them into a whole new script. The guy doesn't actually have a twin brother, obviously, but you get the idea that some parts are totally made up...
A few thoughts. Adaptation is a high-concept film. Not necessarily "high" as in "this is automatically good," but more like, "wow, what a wild idea, let's try to write a script around this no matter how the execution turns out." The result is a decent enough flick that works fine in bits—like the Hollywood comedy stuff and the writing process—but it’s kind of weak as a whole. I’m mostly talking about that attempt at irony at the end, specifically playing around with the rule of the last third of the film. It feels like Kaufman knew he ran out of things to say and decided to act proud of it. Usually, when you use irony, you offer an alternative. Unfortunately, the end of Adaptation doesn't do that; it literally looks like Kaufman had no idea how to wrap things up, so he just gave us some cheap "playing with clichés" nonsense. Whatever, at least the acting and directing are solid. (I mean, the writing isn't terrible either, some ideas are pretty cool and funny, but overall it’s just sloppy)
I started this exact same thread like two months ago and crickets... now suddenly everyone's showing up... clearly they just can't stand me. 😁
I guess I'm not allowed to add genres here... (maybe some other time) so.
action - T2. It’s not totally brainless, but man, it’s dialed up to eleven. Not to mention how technically perfect the whole thing is.
thriller - When Silence Falls. Hard to say WHY... maybe the lead actress, the subtle yet punchy directing, the insane atmosphere, or just the fact that it's one of the few realistic movies about a serial killer...
comedy - The Big Lebowski. Probably the best comedic characters ever. The script is wild, basically every line is hilarious. (Actually, Dr. Strangelove is better than Lebowski, but I'm scared it isn't pure comedy)
drama - The Shawshank Redemption. Or maybe One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Maybe it's easy to pull my heartstrings, but those two really got to me.
horror - The Thing, by Carpenter. Unbeatable atmosphere, you never know who the bad guy is. Honestly the only movie that REALLY freaked me out. (I was only 11 back then though...)
SF - Contact. Based on a great book, but the script is even better—sharper, more precise. The ideas and philosophy in the movie hit home for me, probably why I love it. Plus, the acting and directing are top-tier.
Look, it’s cool when people give me props or agree with me, but I gotta say, I don't agree with everything you said, Richard Howard2.
"In my opinion, directors and writers of crappy blockbusters are bigger geniuses than those who make masterpieces. You could have ten million people in L.A. making a masterpiece, but making over 200 million on a movie that's often total garbage? That takes real genius, like Bay, Spielberg, Lucas, and the rest."
I'm not gonna get into a debate about whether a typical 'blockbuster' is worth more than some 'artsy' flick, but saying anyone can just whip up a masterpiece is a huge stretch. If they could, we wouldn't call them masterpieces, for God's sake. Only once in a blue moon can I actually say: "Okay, I'm gonna make something TRULY great." Most cinematic masterpieces happen almost by accident—a lucky mix of circumstances, a solid script, inspired directing, and raw acting. Honestly, I think Oscar winners are just good examples of manufactured masterpieces... (anyone remember A Beautiful Mind?) but at the end of the day, they aren't really masterpieces. They're just decent movies. As for 'blockbuster directors,' their talent isn't even what decides the final box office numbers. Sure, there are better ones (James Cameron, Steven Spielberg) and worse ones (Michael Bay, George Lucas), but the money usually comes down to other stuff. Star Wars 1 and 2 didn't pull in over 300 million because Lucas is such a legendary blockbuster director. They made that much because the brand was already massive. Same goes for Bay's Pearl Harbor—it didn't hit 200 million because of the movie itself, it was the marketing machine. In America, you can pretty much tell how a movie will do months before it hits theaters; they know exactly who the target audience is and how to manipulate them... Blockbusters are predictable. Marketing budgets are handed out to the 'sure things,' and the best release dates are reserved for specific films... It's clearly a preference system where they 'artificially' create a blockbuster. There's almost zero 'director aura' involved. If Cameron made a new movie and dropped it in September with only 10 million in marketing (instead of the usual 40 million big studios dump into them), I'm 90% sure it wouldn't even crack 100 million.
Maybe this thread title is a bit misleading. I'm not saying he's a "great" director in the way guys like Kubrick, Altman, Allen, or even Spielberg are considered "great." Here's the deal: people call Bay a total hack because his movies are just your typical, brainless Hollywood blockbusters. He doesn't seem interested in making anything meaningful that actually sticks with you. Plus, he lacks any sense of nuance—it's usually just the same old cheap melodrama and endless clichés.
BUT!
That same Bay makes movies that Altman or Allen probably couldn't pull off even if they tried. Sure, maybe he doesn't get the emotional depth right, but when it comes to action, the guy knows what he's doing. Honestly, filming an attack on Pearl Harbor like he did takes actual skill and creativity. I'm not saying he's the king of action—James Cameron would take that crown easily—but saying he deserves to be trashed? Not so fast. Sure, we could get into that whole "is film art or just a craft?" debate, but why can't it be both? Bay might not be an artist, but he's definitely a damn good craftsman. And that counts for something.
One more thing—just for perspective—not a single one of his movies has ever scored higher than a 3/5 for me.
errr.....perfect movie? yeah, right. I love animation, and I’m all for Disney's stuff, but Lilo & Stitch is honestly kind of a mess. They tried way too hard to mash up that classic Disney formula—you know, the lonely kid looking for family, sticking together, blah blah blah—with this wacky vibe full of goofy jokes and parodies. Not even getting into that, the actual pacing toward the end is just super rushed and dumbed down. I mean, the characters are cute, sure. And there are a few scenes that are pure genius... like when 🙂Stitch attacks San Francisco . I'm also pretty annoyed by how much they overused CGI... you can really see it during that final plane showdown—everything looked way too "perfectly" animated.
First off: Minority Report had a budget of $102 million. (Yeah, that covers the actors' salaries and the whole crew.)
The movie pulled in $342 million at the worldwide box office.
What does that tell us? Not much until you factor in everything else. Marketing and distribution costs alone for that flick in the US were about $40 million. So, we're looking at $142 million spent in the US versus $132 million earned there. Toss in the global marketing and distribution costs—I don't have the exact numbers, but let's guess around $30 million. That puts total spending at $172 million. Plus, with tons of big-budget A-list productions featuring huge stars and famous directors, they usually get a percentage of the gross on top of their base pay. Since I don't have the specifics, let's just assume that wasn't the case for Minority Report. (Though in some movies, those cuts can be over 10%.)
$172 million spent against $342 million earned. The catch is that $342 million is the gross revenue—basically what people paid at the ticket booths. Usually, the split between distributors and theaters is something like 60/40, so the producers (let's just say a Hollywood studio) walked away with maybe $200 million from Minority Report. What’s the takeaway? They cleared about $30 million just from theater revenue... and we haven't even touched the money from DVD and Microsoft sales, which lately have been matching or even beating theater numbers. Then there's the TV rights deals... plus any tie-in products like toys and stuff... all in all, Minority Report likely cleared at least $200 million in pure profit.
Even that infamous Waterworld managed to break even, despite only making $88 million domestically...
Lesson learned? Don't believe the nonsense you read in the press, whether it's clickbait or the daily papers...
"When it comes to staying somewhere—camping is the only way to go."
🙂
Maybe if you're into that whole bug-infested, sleeping on grass, stinky tent, and terrible shower vibe... but man, just thinking about it gives me the creeps. Honestly, it’s a shame because the Festival itself is actually pretty decent, got a solid lineup. I'm a city guy through and through. What can I say? 😁