Edit: The person who uploaded the video points out: "...everything [is] green. The clothes, walls, olive's poop, olive's name." I didn't notice that either!
Wow. This is amazing. I love this film to death already, but I'd never noticed any of this. Time to watch again.
The cover to Synecdoche, NY actually says that? There's not a single element of that phrase that applies to that movie (especially the "smash-hit" part).
The cover to Synecdoche, NY actually says that? There's not a single element of that phrase that applies to that movie (especially the "smash-hit" part).
yeah there's also taglines from newspapers (least the ones in the uk) saying "hilarious! 5 stars!"
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
There's always some asshole that loves to be a quote whore and therefore will say ridiculous shit just to get his or her name on the poster.
Shadow of the Vampire was hailed in blurbs as "funniest movie in ages!"
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
The old IP/sequel/remake distinction is a bit weird in this case, since most of the time sequels/remakes/old IP films are made as a safe bet during a weak economy and the studios can rely on a ready-made audience.
But with John Carter, even though he is pre-existing IP, they aren't treating him like one - not a hint of "Remember John Carter? HE'S BACK! ON THE BIG SCREEN!" Heck they won't even call him "John Carter of Mars" in the title. Essentially they're forfeiting any of the boost they could get from JC being an existing IP, but they're also not giving it the marketing promotion that they would give a fully-fledged original IP.
It's certainly better than Pirates 8, Still Don't Let Me In, Transformers: Red Side of Mars, or Girl with the Draconic Skin Art. I'm mostly just objecting to him claiming it's something NEW.
That said, I agree that the way they're marketing it now makes it seems like it's just an Avatar rip-off. If I hadn't previously heard of John Carter of Mars, I'd think that too.
It's new in the sense of not being an established brand like Battleship, Spider-Man, and adaptations of fondly-remembered TV shows are. When people complain about sequels and adapatations it's generally understood that they're not griping about movies being made from books.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Yeah, book movies are at an all-time low these days, unless said books happen to be Young Adult novels.
Imagine what it might be like if the Hardy Boys books were a brand new idea that just hit the shelves this year.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
Mars Needs Moms was fucking horrifying.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
think i understood most of it, only thing i didnt really get was why the house was always on fire.
I guess you could say that living with a perpetual house-fire is a metaphor for living with the knowledge that you're going to die.
I think it was about making bad choices even though you know they're bad choices.
The house on fire is a great metaphor because it has these multiple interpretations that are all tied together, and because the movie just goes with it without winking.
Kaufman came and did a Q&A after a screening of the movie at my university, and the questions basically went:
Q: "So, what does the burning house mean?"
A: "Well, it means whatever you think it means. I wanted the viewer to consider it and think about what it might mean, without my having to just tell you my notion. It's supposed to be ambiguous."
Q (entirely different person, three minutes later): "So, I know you want it to be ambiguous and all, and that's really cool. But what does the burning house mean?"
There were some other dumb questions, some rambling "Allow me to demonstrate my intelligence by analyzing the meaning of your film, please tell me I'm spot-on so I can feel validated" psuedo-questions, and by the end Kaufman basically snapped and was like, "What was that? No, no, I love it. I'm so glad I was able to take the time to come down to your school full of brilliant, brilliant people so you could explain my movie to me. Thank you so much for that." Then he shot poison out of his eyes all over Leonard Maltin and left.
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Seems like the Lorax isn't getting good reviews, just average, which is a shame more because it was the Despicable Me team doing it, which was as nice a surprise as How To Train Your Dragon was. One thing I'm seeing in some reviews is that while the Muppets took the evil oil baron to such an extreme it was a joke on the common plot point, but the corporations here are just super evil because evil blargh. It doesn't seem to be a better blend of conservation and storytelling, as it acts as though chopping down any tree is bad, that's just an unbelievable perch to work from.
I really liked the cartoon version from the 70's, and I think it worked a lot better, at least to me, to tell a message of conservation and nature than other cartoons did (Fern Gully, Captain Planet) and was really worried they would go overboard in a remake to pad it out for a feature film. If only Hollywood took that conservation bit to heart in terms of the source material /snark
I watched Chronicle last weekend and Apollo 18 this week. I guess I'm on a found footage kick (I should toss in my Cloverfield Bluray). I enjoyed both quite a bit.
On Chronicle, I felt like the forced footage angle was a bit contrived. It felt like a crutch most of the movie, but the payoff at the end was worth it.
The protagonist's monologue into the camera about Apex Predator's wouldn't have really worked without. And the final scene where his cousin brings the camera to Tibet was perfect to end out the movie.
On Apollo 18, I love conspiracy theory movies. They let me indulge in a conspiracy theory without actually having to believe one. The scene where they
find the footprints, the Cosmonaut, and then the Russian Lander had a great tone and really had me nervous.
Which was especially bad, since I watched it on a treadmill. Public Safety Announcement, watching scary movies on a treadmill is a health hazard.
Overall Chronicle was better, but Apollo 18 was exactly what I wanted it to be.
And besides, the only reason they aren't calling it "John Carter of Mars" is because "Mars Needs Moms" tanked.
"John Carter of That Other Planet That Just Happens to Be Red"
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I guess he's technically from Earth and goes to Mars. "John Carter of Earth" could be an intriguing title, maybe too confusing.
And besides, the only reason they aren't calling it "John Carter of Mars" is because "Mars Needs Moms" tanked.
That's a silly reason IMO.
Yes, well, that's movie executives for you.
I believe Andrew Stanton has admitted that the excision of "Mars" from the title had a good deal to do with fears that women would be hesitant to see it.
And besides, the only reason they aren't calling it "John Carter of Mars" is because "Mars Needs Moms" tanked.
That's a silly reason IMO.
Yes, well, that's movie executives for you.
I believe Andrew Stanton has admitted that the excision of "Mars" from the title had a good deal to do with fears that women would be hesitant to see it.
And besides, the only reason they aren't calling it "John Carter of Mars" is because "Mars Needs Moms" tanked.
That's a silly reason IMO.
Yes, well, that's movie executives for you.
I believe Andrew Stanton has admitted that the excision of "Mars" from the title had a good deal to do with fears that women would be hesitant to see it.
What was his reasoning?
I can't find the original article, but it was not at all his reasoning. The studio's testing in the wake of the Mars Needs Moms disaster revealed that there's something about the title that was alienating people. But it was published elsewhere that yes, they were very concerned about the female demo, who they felt were perhaps especially sensitive to such an unabashed sci-fi trope as, you know, a planet. Girls don't like sci-fi, was the bottom line.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I still say 'Mars Needs Moms' is a laaaaaaame title for a movie, and is actually kind of demeaning too.
Agreed, it had that: "Aliens kidnap earth women and put them in metal bikinis for the titilation of young male viewers" vibe straight out of the 50s schlock scifi.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Agreed, it had that: "Aliens kidnap earth women and put them in metal bikinis for the titilation of young male viewers" vibe straight out of the 50s schlock scifi.
And besides, the only reason they aren't calling it "John Carter of Mars" is because "Mars Needs Moms" tanked.
That's a silly reason IMO.
Yes, well, that's movie executives for you.
I believe Andrew Stanton has admitted that the excision of "Mars" from the title had a good deal to do with fears that women would be hesitant to see it.
And besides, the only reason they aren't calling it "John Carter of Mars" is because "Mars Needs Moms" tanked.
That's a silly reason IMO.
Yes, well, that's movie executives for you.
I believe Andrew Stanton has admitted that the excision of "Mars" from the title had a good deal to do with fears that women would be hesitant to see it.
What was his reasoning?
I can't find the original article, but it was not at all his reasoning. The studio's testing in the wake of the Mars Needs Moms disaster revealed that there's something about the title that was alienating people. But it was published elsewhere that yes, they were very concerned about the female demo, who they felt were perhaps especially sensitive to such an unabashed sci-fi trope as, you know, a planet. Girls don't like sci-fi, was the bottom line.
They really don't know shit about women. IIRC women have the highest numbers in readerships in the novel industry, including science fiction.
Erasing "From Mars" from the title wasn't going to change a damn thing in its appeal IMO.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
The Lorax is the least horrible modern motion picture adaptation of a Seuss book to date.
Considering the competition is Jim Carrey, Jim Carrey as an elephant singing REO Speedwagon, and Mike Myers in a macabre combination of Jew-face and a human/cat hybrid, that's an exceptionally low bar to hurdle.
However, The Lorax is probably my favorite Seuss book, and I didn't hate the film, so there you go.
Just watched Mulholland Drive again. A great film, but still not as good as Inland Empire in my opinion.
Inland Empire is probably my favorite Lynch film, with Eraserhead and Mulholland Dr. not far behind.
It occurred to me recently that Inland Empire feels like the work of a 20 year old film student. And Dumbland feels like the work of a 13 year old. Lynch is young at heart.
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I've always found Inland Empire a little bit too intimidating for me to enjoy as a movie. I understand a major goal of David Lynch's work is to build worlds he can spend time in, but Empire seems to have purposefully disorienting elements that work to such an extent that while watching it, I really do begin to feel like I actually am spending time in that world. Like I'm giving part of myself over to it, or opening myself up to some kind of unpleasant psychic invasion by watching it.
Between the warping of implied realities at play in the story, along with the highly unconventional plot structure and the extended length of Inland Empire, it all unsettlingly works in a way that causes a feeling of disassociation about what belongs in the movie and what belongs in your idea of your living world.
It's just a little more uncomfortable than I can handle on the terms I'm willing to meet most other movies on. I almost want a protective suit or something between me and the screen.
After watching Inland Empire one time I had this deeply uncomfortable sensation - it felt like my head was expanding and contracting. Now, this is a sensation I had had a few times before, but it was especially strong this time and I couldn't help wondering if it was a side effect of letting David Lynch mess with my brain for 3 hours.
After watching Inland Empire one time I had this deeply uncomfortable sensation - it felt like my head was expanding and contracting. Now, this is a sensation I had had a few times before, but it was especially strong this time and I couldn't help wondering if it was a side effect of letting David Lynch mess with my brain for 3 hours.
Well, yeah.
Dude's got a two hour movie floating around in three hours of Lynchspace.
Just watched The Muppets. The song 'Man or Muppet', I could have sworn Elton John was singing in that but the credits list 'Jason Segel and Walter'. I'm not convinced, the muppet singing alongside Segel and the piano work sounds very Elton john but Google isn't revealing anything. Anyone know differently?
I'll add that watching Inland Empire isn't hugely uncomfortable for me - the movie's freaky but not "dear god I may have to shut this off" freaky.
By comparison, here's two trippy youtube videos I considered shutting off: uno, dos. It doesn't help that the titles are "lsd-trip" and "trippy animation" - I guess I imagined what'd be like if I was on drugs and I was hallucinating these things and I couldn't escape.
The cover to Synecdoche, NY actually says that? There's not a single element of that phrase that applies to that movie (especially the "smash-hit" part).
yeah there's also taglines from newspapers (least the ones in the uk) saying "hilarious! 5 stars!"
I agree it's misleading to call Synecdoche a comedy but it does have a lot of funny stuff.
The cover to Synecdoche, NY actually says that? There's not a single element of that phrase that applies to that movie (especially the "smash-hit" part).
yeah there's also taglines from newspapers (least the ones in the uk) saying "hilarious! 5 stars!"
weird choices. my blu-ray cover says "great film. see it twice" - roger ebert and "a movie miracle. no film with ambition this large, and achievement this impressive, and be anything but exhilarating." - time magazine
both of which are more accurate and more worthwhile praise
Posts
Edit:
Wow. This is amazing. I love this film to death already, but I'd never noticed any of this. Time to watch again.
i like how the cover said "the smash-hit comedy of the year!" and yet the film left me feeling depressed as hell.
think i understood most of it, only thing i didnt really get was why the house was always on fire. i need to watch it again.
yeah there's also taglines from newspapers (least the ones in the uk) saying "hilarious! 5 stars!"
Shadow of the Vampire was hailed in blurbs as "funniest movie in ages!"
It's new in the sense of not being an established brand like Battleship, Spider-Man, and adaptations of fondly-remembered TV shows are. When people complain about sequels and adapatations it's generally understood that they're not griping about movies being made from books.
Imagine what it might be like if the Hardy Boys books were a brand new idea that just hit the shelves this year.
They did just do a Nancy Drew movie, no idea how well it did at the box office.
I think it was about making bad choices even though you know they're bad choices.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
The house on fire is a great metaphor because it has these multiple interpretations that are all tied together, and because the movie just goes with it without winking.
Kaufman came and did a Q&A after a screening of the movie at my university, and the questions basically went:
Q: "So, what does the burning house mean?"
A: "Well, it means whatever you think it means. I wanted the viewer to consider it and think about what it might mean, without my having to just tell you my notion. It's supposed to be ambiguous."
Q (entirely different person, three minutes later): "So, I know you want it to be ambiguous and all, and that's really cool. But what does the burning house mean?"
There were some other dumb questions, some rambling "Allow me to demonstrate my intelligence by analyzing the meaning of your film, please tell me I'm spot-on so I can feel validated" psuedo-questions, and by the end Kaufman basically snapped and was like, "What was that? No, no, I love it. I'm so glad I was able to take the time to come down to your school full of brilliant, brilliant people so you could explain my movie to me. Thank you so much for that." Then he shot poison out of his eyes all over Leonard Maltin and left.
I really liked the cartoon version from the 70's, and I think it worked a lot better, at least to me, to tell a message of conservation and nature than other cartoons did (Fern Gully, Captain Planet) and was really worried they would go overboard in a remake to pad it out for a feature film. If only Hollywood took that conservation bit to heart in terms of the source material /snark
That's a silly reason IMO.
On Chronicle, I felt like the forced footage angle was a bit contrived. It felt like a crutch most of the movie, but the payoff at the end was worth it.
On Apollo 18, I love conspiracy theory movies. They let me indulge in a conspiracy theory without actually having to believe one. The scene where they
Which was especially bad, since I watched it on a treadmill. Public Safety Announcement, watching scary movies on a treadmill is a health hazard.
Overall Chronicle was better, but Apollo 18 was exactly what I wanted it to be.
"John Carter of That Other Planet That Just Happens to Be Red"
The fact that they didn't greenlight a sequel is probably a clue, since who does not want to create a franchise these days.
Yes, well, that's movie executives for you.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I believe Andrew Stanton has admitted that the excision of "Mars" from the title had a good deal to do with fears that women would be hesitant to see it.
What was his reasoning?
I can't find the original article, but it was not at all his reasoning. The studio's testing in the wake of the Mars Needs Moms disaster revealed that there's something about the title that was alienating people. But it was published elsewhere that yes, they were very concerned about the female demo, who they felt were perhaps especially sensitive to such an unabashed sci-fi trope as, you know, a planet. Girls don't like sci-fi, was the bottom line.
Mars Needs MILFs. I'd totally see that.
They really don't know shit about women. IIRC women have the highest numbers in readerships in the novel industry, including science fiction.
Erasing "From Mars" from the title wasn't going to change a damn thing in its appeal IMO.
Considering the competition is Jim Carrey, Jim Carrey as an elephant singing REO Speedwagon, and Mike Myers in a macabre combination of Jew-face and a human/cat hybrid, that's an exceptionally low bar to hurdle.
However, The Lorax is probably my favorite Seuss book, and I didn't hate the film, so there you go.
It occurred to me recently that Inland Empire feels like the work of a 20 year old film student. And Dumbland feels like the work of a 13 year old. Lynch is young at heart.
Between the warping of implied realities at play in the story, along with the highly unconventional plot structure and the extended length of Inland Empire, it all unsettlingly works in a way that causes a feeling of disassociation about what belongs in the movie and what belongs in your idea of your living world.
It's just a little more uncomfortable than I can handle on the terms I'm willing to meet most other movies on. I almost want a protective suit or something between me and the screen.
Well, yeah.
Dude's got a two hour movie floating around in three hours of Lynchspace.
Especially the ending.
Biggest disappointment is that it's terrible as an action movie. There are 2 action sets in the entire movie.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
By comparison, here's two trippy youtube videos I considered shutting off: uno, dos. It doesn't help that the titles are "lsd-trip" and "trippy animation" - I guess I imagined what'd be like if I was on drugs and I was hallucinating these things and I couldn't escape.
weird choices. my blu-ray cover says "great film. see it twice" - roger ebert and "a movie miracle. no film with ambition this large, and achievement this impressive, and be anything but exhilarating." - time magazine
both of which are more accurate and more worthwhile praise