Discussion:
Better idea for the next Batman movie
(too old to reply)
Darth Nub
2003-09-14 15:13:22 UTC
Permalink
I just read that Christian Bale (American Psycho, Velvet Goldmine) has
been officially announced to play Batman in the next film in the
series, shooting in January 2004. Christopher Nolan (Memento) is
directing, & from the looks of it, the film will be based on the Frank
Miller comic Batman: Year One.

I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Batman comics from a
few years back, but I've got a much better idea:

Batman 5: Arkham Asylum

Directed by David Lynch
Screenplay by David Lynch & Grant Morrison

Cast:
Batman - Kyle Machlachlan
The Joker - Brad Dourif
Amadeus Arkham - Max Von Sydow
Two-Face - Dennis Hopper


Silly? Read the comic...
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-14 15:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darth Nub
I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Batman comics from a
Batman 5: Arkham Asylum
Directed by David Lynch
Screenplay by David Lynch & Grant Morrison
Lynch would never be interested in doing something like this.
RR
2003-09-14 16:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua Zyber
Post by Darth Nub
I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Batman comics from a
Batman 5: Arkham Asylum
Directed by David Lynch
Screenplay by David Lynch & Grant Morrison
Lynch would never be interested in doing something like this.
The day Lynch tackles any kind of mainstream superhero/comic book is the day
he and I go our separate ways. (Sure, it's easy to say that in the vastness
of cyberspace...but it would be mondo depressing and a sure sign of the
coming film apocalypse.)

Frankly, I'm bored with all of these hip, up and coming directors selling
out and going in this direction. It's become predictable.

--
RR

If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't
include the right to experiment with your own consciousness,
then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp
it was written on. - Terence McKenna
Pikemann Urge
2003-09-15 09:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RR
Frankly, I'm bored with all of these hip, up and coming directors selling
out and going in this direction. It's become predictable.
The studios have the 'me-too' syndrome. Somebody brings out Spider-Man
(as if I could give a shit). Then somebody wants to do Hulk, or League
of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or something else... all this stemmed from
the excellent work by Tim Burton with his pair of Batman movies (though
I prefer the first one).

After that the 'super hero' genre either got crap or directors showing
off ILM's 'special' effects. Sorry, I'm not interested in that.

Better idea would be to get more, good, original screenplays produced
for less money.

-- Pikemann Urge --

'However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light'
-- Stanley Kubrick
Henry the Horse
2003-09-15 11:44:25 UTC
Permalink
"Pikemann Urge" <***@MAPSONbigpond.net.au> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@MAPSONbigpond.net.au...


< The studios have the 'me-too' syndrome. Somebody brings out Spider-Man (as
if I could give a shit). Then somebody wants to do Hulk, or League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen, or something else... all this stemmed from the
excellent work by Tim Burton with his pair of Batman movies (though I prefer
the first one). >


I think both super-hero movies and "based on videogames" movies were the
logical step for action movies. Not just for marketing reasons, but also as
an opportunity to make more spectacular visuals. But the core of it all is
not so different from Errol Flynn movies.


< After that the 'super hero' genre either got crap or directors showing off
ILM's 'special' effects. Sorry, I'm not interested in that. >


I'd mention the X-Men movies as exceptions - and of course the first
Superman movie. Haven't seen the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen yet, but
I don't have high hopes for it.

I agree that Spider-Man, Daredevil, or The Hulk are different shades of bad.


< Better idea would be to get more, good, original screenplays produced for
less money. >


Those two things don't need to be incompatible. Honestly, I'd miss the
occasional blockbuster thing.



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
RR
2003-09-15 22:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pikemann Urge
Post by RR
Frankly, I'm bored with all of these hip, up and coming directors
selling out and going in this direction. It's become predictable.
The studios have the 'me-too' syndrome. Somebody brings out Spider-Man
(as if I could give a shit). Then somebody wants to do Hulk, or League
of Extraordinary Gentlemen, or something else... all this stemmed from
the excellent work by Tim Burton with his pair of Batman movies
(though I prefer the first one).
An argument *could* be made for Richard Donner's "Superman" 1 & 2 being the
progenitors of all this nonsense. I don't mind superhero films - I liked
Spidey a lot, the X-Men films were fun, and Hulk was flawed but cool - and
yet none of them are substitutes for real cinema. At the of end of the day
it's still a big bubblegum crisis and cinema's just getting worse and in
many ways these films are partially responsible. And big part of the problem
is - which I touched on in my first post - is that many of them are being
made by directors who made edgy, indie films in the first place! Frankly,
I'm happy that the new Batman film is going to be made by Chris Nolan (a
director I personally couldn't care less about) instead of Darren Aronofsky
(sp?) - because the latter has great films in him and he probably shouldn't
be wasting his time on Batman. I don't care what spin you put on it or how
you dress it up or who you cast as the Joker - it's still fucking Batman.

I saw "American Splendor" the other night - a wholly different kind of
comic book movie, and it was just fantastic. Really wonderful stuff. I'd be
interested to find out if the recent success of comic book movies had
anything to do with this one getting made. If so, then maybe it's not all
bad.
Post by Pikemann Urge
Better idea would be to get more, good, original screenplays produced
for less money.
Yes.

--
RR

If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't
include the right to experiment with your own consciousness,
then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp
it was written on. - Terence McKenna
Henry the Horse
2003-09-16 01:12:20 UTC
Permalink
"RR" <***@hotmail.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bk5eqi$ped2t$***@ID-155984.news.uni-berlin.de...


< An argument *could* be made for Richard Donner's "Superman" 1 & 2 being
the progenitors of all this nonsense. >


It certainly could. If I remember it right, (and I very well may not) that
was the reason Time Warner bought DC.


< I don't mind superhero films - I liked Spidey a lot, the X-Men films were
fun, and Hulk was flawed but cool - and yet none of them are substitutes for
real cinema. >


I'd like to think that they don't try to be. As I said earlier, they're
substitutes for all those other more or less crap action movies we've been
having forever.


< At the of end of the day it's still a big bubblegum crisis and cinema's
just getting worse and in many ways these films are partially responsible. >


I dunno... you may very well be right. I personally think the true black
hole for the most commercial cinema was that time in the 80's where
everything had to be a stupid teen comedy...


< And big part of the problem is - which I touched on in my first post - is
that many of them are being made by directors who made edgy, indie films in
the first place! >


I've been reading a lot these last years about how, for instance, the
Sundance festival has turned into something where people make indie films
with the intention from the beginning of jumping into mainstream as soon as
possible.


< Frankly, I'm happy that the new Batman film is going to be made by Chris
Nolan (a director I personally couldn't care less about) instead of Darren
Aronofsky (sp?) - because the latter has great films in him and he probably
shouldn't be wasting his time on Batman. I don't care what spin you put on
it or how you dress it up or who you cast as the Joker - it's still fucking
Batman. >


That's why the best idea is what was accomplished with both X-Men movies -
not to make them completely stupid, and not to make them try to be more than
they can.


< I saw "American Splendor" the other night - a wholly different kind of
comic book movie, and it was just fantastic. Really wonderful stuff. I'd be
interested to find out if the recent success of comic book movies had
anything to do with this one getting made. If so, then maybe it's not all
bad. >


American Splendor is the Robert Crumb comic? Or am I mixing authors here?

In any case, Ghost World and Road To Perdition were both comic book movies
too...

I personally think it's something, um, generational. Suddenly there's people
like Tarantino or Kevin Smith who love comics and have absolutely no problem
being very outspoken about it... next thing you know, comic books and
super-heroes are a "hip" thing to do, even by filmmakers that, yes, should
have been making "real" cinema.

Also, I suspect that this super-heroes trend will diminish as soon as, as
it's happening now, the industry realizes that this is not per se the road
to great box office success.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-16 02:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
I dunno... you may very well be right. I personally think the true black
hole for the most commercial cinema was that time in the 80's where
everything had to be a stupid teen comedy...
Not looked around lately?
Post by Henry the Horse
American Splendor is the Robert Crumb comic? Or am I mixing authors here?
The comic was written by Harvey Pekar and illustrated by Crumb. The
movie stars Paul Giamatti as Pekar, and Harvey Pekar as himself
commenting on Paul Giamatti's portrayal of him.
Henry the Horse
2003-09-16 12:40:47 UTC
Permalink
"Joshua Zyber" <***@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:6lu9b.18369$***@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...


<< I personally think the true black hole for the most commercial cinema was
that time in the 80's where everything had to be a stupid teen comedy... >>

< Not looked around lately? >


I remember it as being far worse then. Of course, memory is never
objective...


< [American Splendor] The comic was written by Harvey Pekar and illustrated
by Crumb. The movie stars Paul Giamatti as Pekar, and Harvey Pekar as
himself commenting on Paul Giamatti's portrayal of him. >


I didn't even know about that comic - but I definitely have to see the
movie!


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
RR
2003-09-16 03:00:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
< I don't mind superhero films - I liked Spidey a lot, the X-Men
films were fun, and Hulk was flawed but cool - and yet none of them
are substitutes for real cinema. >
I'd like to think that they don't try to be. As I said earlier,
they're substitutes for all those other more or less crap action
movies we've been having forever.
Well they ~are~ that, yes...and I suppose in that regard, we should be
grateful. Of course, in a perfect world, as Pikemann mentioned, it'd be nice
if the money funnelled into these pictures was used to make 4 or 5 smaller
films.
Post by Henry the Horse
< At the of end of the day it's still a big bubblegum crisis and
cinema's just getting worse and in many ways these films are
partially responsible. >
I dunno... you may very well be right. I personally think the true
black hole for the most commercial cinema was that time in the 80's
where everything had to be a stupid teen comedy...
Let's just go a little further back and blame Lucas and Spielberg. That's
always a safe, easy bet.
Post by Henry the Horse
< And big part of the problem is - which I touched on in my first
post - is that many of them are being made by directors who made
edgy, indie films in the first place! >
I've been reading a lot these last years about how, for instance, the
Sundance festival has turned into something where people make indie
films with the intention from the beginning of jumping into
mainstream as soon as possible.
Where are the Lynchs and Cronenbergs and Gilliams of today? They're sitting
at home or working some shitty video store job, not getting any financing,
that's where. It's like the goal for ~everyone~ is to see who can sell out
the fastest and those who aren't willing to compromise don't get squat.

B-O-R-I-N-G. I'm holding out hope that the guy who did "Donnie Darko" comes
up with something good.
Post by Henry the Horse
< Frankly, I'm happy that the new Batman film is going to be made by
Chris Nolan (a director I personally couldn't care less about)
instead of Darren Aronofsky (sp?) - because the latter has great
films in him and he probably shouldn't be wasting his time on Batman.
I don't care what spin you put on it or how you dress it up or who
you cast as the Joker - it's still fucking Batman. >
That's why the best idea is what was accomplished with both X-Men
movies - not to make them completely stupid, and not to make them try
to be more than they can.
Those were decent films. Then you've got "The League", which is just
textbook on how badly these films can go wrong. Which is likely a good
thing, because there were so many mistakes made on that film, that any
filmmaker churning out his or her comic book movie opus can just point to
LXG when the studio starts telling them to make changes. "Look - this is
what can happen if you don't shut the fuck up and let me do my thing!!!! And
I will NOT hire Sean Connery, OK!?!?!?!?"
Post by Henry the Horse
< I saw "American Splendor" the other night - a wholly different kind
of comic book movie, and it was just fantastic. Really wonderful
stuff. I'd be interested to find out if the recent success of comic
book movies had anything to do with this one getting made. If so,
then maybe it's not all bad. >
American Splendor is the Robert Crumb comic? Or am I mixing authors here?
What Zyber said. Only with less self importance.
Post by Henry the Horse
In any case, Ghost World and Road To Perdition were both comic book
movies too...
One of which rocked, and one of which sucked. But I see your point. Of
course the difference is most people who see either of those will never know
they were based on comics. American Splendor goes out of its way to show
that it's based on a comic, which was refreshing, because at the very least
many people who see it will have their mind expanded to the notion that
there's more to comics than triple D cups and men in spandex. The guy who
plays Crumb in the film is an absolute scream. You can tell he's watched the
Crumb doc repeatedly to get the mannerisms just right.
Post by Henry the Horse
I personally think it's something, um, generational. Suddenly there's
people like Tarantino or Kevin Smith who love comics and have
absolutely no problem being very outspoken about it... next thing you
know, comic books and super-heroes are a "hip" thing to do, even by
filmmakers that, yes, should have been making "real" cinema.
The scary thing about this notion, obviously, is what are the kids of
today - the filmmakers of tomorrow - obsessed with? Video games. Even comic
books are a dying art - or rather they're far more geared toward adults than
kids anymore. 20, 30 years from now "Yu-Gi-Oh!" will be a live-action film,
because some kid grew up on it.
Post by Henry the Horse
Also, I suspect that this super-heroes trend will diminish as soon
as, as it's happening now, the industry realizes that this is not per
se the road to great box office success.
Yup, yup, yup.

--
RR

If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't
include the right to experiment with your own consciousness,
then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp
it was written on. - Terence McKenna
Henry the Horse
2003-09-16 13:18:51 UTC
Permalink
"RR" <***@hotmail.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bk5u8g$pj311$***@ID-155984.news.uni-berlin.de...


<< I'd like to think that they don't try to be. As I said earlier, they're
substitutes for all those other more or less crap action movies we've been
having forever. >>

< Well they ~are~ that, yes...and I suppose in that regard, we should be
grateful. Of course, in a perfect world, as Pikemann mentioned, it'd be nice
if the money funnelled into these pictures was used to make 4 or 5 smaller
films. >


But don't blockbusters more or less help finance the others? I have no idea
how this works in the US, but in Spain, where I live, it's certainly that
way. At least indirectly, in the same way that advertising funds cinema, ie,
by paying outrageous prices to cinema people who then can work for almost
nothing on real cinema, or by having blockbusters maintain distribution
chains that wouldn't be able to stay in business otherwise and also
distribute the smaller films, etc. I've always read about the US how two
successful blckbusters make possible 8 smaller films.

Obviously, this only proves what you said - that this is not a perfect
world.


<< I dunno... you may very well be right. I personally think the true black
hole for the most commercial cinema was that time in the 80's where
everything had to be a stupid teen comedy... >>

< Let's just go a little further back and blame Lucas and Spielberg. That's
always a safe, easy bet. >


Ah no, that's my line in the sand, sir! I firmly believe that there actually
should be more Lucases and Spielbergs. I wish it was always people like
those two in charge of the light entertainment!


< Where are the Lynchs and Cronenbergs and Gilliams of today? They're
sitting at home or working some shitty video store job, not getting any
financing, that's where. >


Mmmm... that's a great question. I'd blame 50% on the way the industry
works, but another 50% on (excuse the cliché) the MTV generation, where most
new filmmakers know a lot about visuals and mostly nothing about anything
else.


< It's like the goal for ~everyone~ is to see who can sell out the fastest
and those who aren't willing to compromise don't get squat. >


Yes, that's the impression I get from reading about the subject.


< B-O-R-I-N-G. I'm holding out hope that the guy who did "Donnie Darko"
comes up with something good. >


And then, what you got with that is a million people saying the guy's an
idiot and the movie turned out to be so good by sheer luck...


<< That's why the best idea is what was accomplished with both X-Men
movies - not to make them completely stupid, and not to make them try to be
more than they can. >>

< Those were decent films. Then you've got "The League", which is just
textbook on how badly these films can go wrong. Which is likely a good
thing, because there were so many mistakes made on that film, that any
filmmaker churning out his or her comic book movie opus can just point to
LXG when the studio starts telling them to make changes. "Look - this is
what can happen if you don't shut the fuck up and let me do my thing!!!! And
I will NOT hire Sean Connery, OK!?!?!?!?" >


I still have to see the League movie. My comic-book side tells me every day
to go, and my cinema side tells me to see anything else... In any case, as
charismatic and whatnot as Connery is, these last years his presence in a
movie is most times a kind of disaster guaranteed. Not surprisingly if you
read any interview with the man about what his concept of cinema is.


<< In any case, Ghost World and Road To Perdition were both comic book
movies too... >>

< One of which rocked, and one of which sucked. But I see your point. Of
course the difference is most people who see either of those will never know
they were based on comics. American Splendor goes out of its way to show
that it's based on a comic, which was refreshing, because at the very least
many people who see it will have their mind expanded to the notion that
there's more to comics than triple D cups and men in spandex. The guy who
plays Crumb in the film is an absolute scream. You can tell he's watched the
Crumb doc repeatedly to get the mannerisms just right. >


If this was a forum about comics, I'd dust off my usual rant on how,
paradoxically, all measures taken to insure good, author, non-spandex comics
could get a better distribution and a chance at being known, actually
accomplished the exact opposite... but I won't bore you with that.


< The scary thing about this notion, obviously, is what are the kids of
today - the filmmakers of tomorrow - obsessed with? Video games. Even comic
books are a dying art - or rather they're far more geared toward adults than
kids anymore. 20, 30 years from now "Yu-Gi-Oh!" will be a live-action film,
because some kid grew up on it. >


No shit, if you pardon my French. You remind me of a friend who's trying to
convince a kid from his family to read comics - and the kid finds that's,
er, intellectually exhausting!

Which would bring me to another mini-rant of mine, about why even the
videogames that don't promote hand-eye coordination but "brain-brain"
coordination are also completely dead... including the only genre I'm
interested in, graphic adventures...


<< Also, I suspect that this super-heroes trend will diminish as soon as, as
it's happening now, the industry realizes that this is not per se the road
to great box office success. >>

< Yup, yup, yup. >


Sadly, the money won't go to the Cronenbergs and the Lynches and the
Gilliams... oh well.



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Trichome
2003-09-17 03:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
< B-O-R-I-N-G. I'm holding out hope that the guy who did "Donnie Darko"
comes up with something good. >
And then, what you got with that is a million people saying the guy's an
idiot and the movie turned out to be so good by sheer luck...
That certainly was the impression I got, upon viewing the extra
footage on the DVD.

I would hold out hope that whoever fixed DD has more greatness within
him/her, the potential to fix other films, or to originate his/her own.

Someone must know who it was.


Trichome
--
Texts available: Grandmother, EM, Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH;
TP:episode guide, timeline, allusions, symbols, Log Lady intros,
Laura's Secret Diary, Cooper's autobioy, On the Air, LH, MD pilot.

http://www.misleader.org/ - follow W.'s Daily Lies
Keith Gow
2003-09-17 08:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trichome
Post by Henry the Horse
< B-O-R-I-N-G. I'm holding out hope that the guy who did "Donnie Darko"
comes up with something good. >
And then, what you got with that is a million people saying the guy's an
idiot and the movie turned out to be so good by sheer luck...
That certainly was the impression I got, upon viewing the extra
footage on the DVD.
Extra footage on DVDs never proves a bad director. It may prove a bad
editor or, in this case, a very good editor (or editor/director
combo).

It is the director's commentary that proves the film was good by sheer
luck...

-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 02:31:56 UTC
Permalink
"Keith Gow" <***@vicnet.net.au> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...


< Extra footage on DVDs never proves a bad director. It may prove a bad
editor or, in this case, a very good editor (or editor/director combo). >


The editor may be marvelous, but it's the director (except in very special
cases) who's still responsible for the end result.


< It is the director's commentary that proves the film was good by sheer
luck... >


Many good directors are terrible doing commentaries. It's not the first time
it seems such an idiot can't be responsible for a good movie.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Keith Gow
2003-09-18 07:07:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:31:56 +0200, "Henry the Horse"
Post by Henry the Horse
< It is the director's commentary that proves the film was good by sheer
luck... >
Many good directors are terrible doing commentaries. It's not the first time
it seems such an idiot can't be responsible for a good movie.
Not quite what I meant. The director's explanation of Donnie Darko is
completely ridiculous. He should have taken a leaf out of David
Lynch's book and shut the hell up.

-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 17:23:01 UTC
Permalink
"Keith Gow" <***@vicnet.net.au> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...


<< Many good directors are terrible doing commentaries. It's not the first
time it seems such an idiot can't be responsible for a good movie. >>

< Not quite what I meant. The director's explanation of Donnie Darko is
completely ridiculous. He should have taken a leaf out of David Lynch's book
and shut the hell up. >


You mean it's inconsistent with what we see, or that it's way less
suggestive than the film itself? If it's the second... well, Ridley Scott
talking about Blade Runner leaves a very similar impression.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, mind you, I haven't listened to the
commentary. It's just that I generally try to judge a film by what I see on
the screen, regardless of anything else.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Keith Gow
2003-09-19 07:15:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:23:01 +0200, "Henry the Horse"
Post by Henry the Horse
<< Many good directors are terrible doing commentaries. It's not the first
time it seems such an idiot can't be responsible for a good movie. >>
< Not quite what I meant. The director's explanation of Donnie Darko is
completely ridiculous. He should have taken a leaf out of David Lynch's book
and shut the hell up. >
You mean it's inconsistent with what we see, or that it's way less
suggestive than the film itself? If it's the second... well, Ridley Scott
talking about Blade Runner leaves a very similar impression.
Ah, good example.

Donnie Darko's director literalises everything. Whereas I think
everyone here appreciates it on a Lynchian level - where it is an
emotionally satisfying film - the director of DD really wants it to
all make science fiction sense as well.

He should take a leaf out of Terry Gilliam's book - emotional honesty
and not necessarily plot-dominated.
Post by Henry the Horse
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, mind you, I haven't listened to the
commentary. It's just that I generally try to judge a film by what I see on
the screen, regardless of anything else.
Of course, but this example came up as a criticism of the director. I
try to only judge a film on what it is - not what I want it to be or
what the director wants it to be.

-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 10:31:47 UTC
Permalink
"Keith Gow" <***@vicnet.net.au> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...


< Donnie Darko's director literalises everything. Whereas I think everyone
here appreciates it on a Lynchian level - where it is an emotionally
satisfying film - the director of DD really wants it to all make science
fiction sense as well.

He should take a leaf out of Terry Gilliam's book - emotional honesty and
not necessarily plot-dominated. >


Ah... now I think I get it.


<< Not that I'm disagreeing with you, mind you, I haven't listened to the
commentary. It's just that I generally try to judge a film by what I see on
the screen, regardless of anything else. >>

< Of course, but this example came up as a criticism of the director. I try
to only judge a film on what it is - not what I want it to be or what the
director wants it to be. >


Maybe I'm missing something, but I think we're saying more or less the same
here... Of course, according to my own way of seeing this, "what I want it
to be" is an unavoidable filter in the viewer. But as I said, theory aside,
now I think I got your meaning.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Keith Gow
2003-09-20 04:05:51 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:31:47 +0200, "Henry the Horse"
Post by Henry the Horse
< Of course, but this example came up as a criticism of the director. I try
to only judge a film on what it is - not what I want it to be or what the
director wants it to be. >
Maybe I'm missing something, but I think we're saying more or less the same
here...
We probably are, but that never stopped me from reiterating or
overstating something :-)
Post by Henry the Horse
Of course, according to my own way of seeing this, "what I want it
to be" is an unavoidable filter in the viewer. But as I said, theory aside,
now I think I got your meaning.
"What I want it to be" is the one type of criticism I dislike the most
- usually because this is a trend that the internet and on-line
"reviewers" have perpetuated.

If a reviewer says something like "the film doesn't fulfil its
potential as a <insert genre here>" and then gives specific examples
from the film in how it fails, that is a comment on the film.

If a reviewer says "the film really should have done <this>, <this>
and <this> to make it a better <insert genre here> film" then we have
the reviewer crossing a line. And it tells us more about the reviewer.

I think it's understandable that film reviewers compare a current film
to a director's own oeuvre or even similar films to it, but I truly
think a film should stand on its own and be criticised for what it is
rather than what the critic thinks it should be.

-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
2003-09-20 11:17:45 UTC
Permalink
"Keith Gow" <***@vicnet.net.au> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...


< "What I want it to be" is the one type of criticism I dislike the most -
usually because this is a trend that the internet and on-line "reviewers"
have perpetuated. >


Obvious exceptions aside, I don't even read on-line reviews. I couldn't care
less what someone I know nothing about thinks of a movie. This is of course
especially true of IMDb and the like. That's why I still rely for it
(somewhat) on papers and mags.


< [...] If a reviewer says "the film really should have done <this>, <this>
and <this> to make it a better <insert genre here> film" then we have the
reviewer crossing a line. And it tells us more about the reviewer. >


Whoa, welcome to amateur hour, indeed. That's not even worthy of
consideration.


< I think it's understandable that film reviewers compare a current film to
a director's own oeuvre or even similar films to it, but I truly think a
film should stand on its own and be criticised for what it is rather than
what the critic thinks it should be. >


It's a fine line between giving necessary points of reference and overdoing
it as you say.



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Keith Gow
2003-09-21 01:48:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:17:45 +0200, "Henry the Horse"
Post by Henry the Horse
< "What I want it to be" is the one type of criticism I dislike the most -
usually because this is a trend that the internet and on-line "reviewers"
have perpetuated. >
Obvious exceptions aside, I don't even read on-line reviews. I couldn't care
less what someone I know nothing about thinks of a movie. This is of course
especially true of IMDb and the like. That's why I still rely for it
(somewhat) on papers and mags.
I'm not even talking about IMDb reviewers, but the number of
professional and semi-professional sites that have sprung up purely
because you can do that on the internet - and everyone thinks they can
write a decent review just because they have an opinion!

-- Keith Gow --
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-21 04:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
I'm not even talking about IMDb reviewers, but the number of
professional and semi-professional sites that have sprung up purely
because you can do that on the internet - and everyone thinks they can
write a decent review just because they have an opinion!
Yes, there are bad reviewers on the internet. There are also bad
reviewers in print publications and television. Pick your worst internet
movie reviewer and then ask yourself if he is really any worse than
Michael Medved, Jeffrey Lyons, Rex Reed, or Richard Roeper. It's all
relative. 90% of everything is crap.
Keith Gow
2003-09-21 04:50:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 04:22:42 GMT, "Joshua Zyber"
Post by Joshua Zyber
90% of everything is crap.
Including your reviews? ;-)

-- Keith Gow --
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-21 15:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
Post by Joshua Zyber
90% of everything is crap.
Including your reviews? ;-)
My articles constitute the 10% of internet reviews that aren't crap! See
how that works?
damnfine
2003-09-22 03:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua Zyber
Post by Keith Gow
Post by Joshua Zyber
90% of everything is crap.
Including your reviews? ;-)
My articles constitute the 10% of internet reviews that aren't crap!
Or at least 90% of them do...


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!" - Morbo
Trichome
2003-09-21 17:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua Zyber
Yes, there are bad reviewers on the internet. There are also bad
reviewers in print publications and television. Pick your worst internet
movie reviewer and then ask yourself if he is really any worse than
Michael Medved, Jeffrey Lyons, Rex Reed, or Richard Roeper. It's all
relative.
90% of everything is crap.
With the notable exception of crap itself,
which tends to be composed upwards of 99.9% crap. ; )


Is the oft quoted statistic supposed to mean that 90% of all the
(classes of things) are crap?

Or that 90% of (all things in all the classes) are crap?

Are there some classes whose members are only 80% crap, to balance
out the figure for the classes (such as neo-Conservatives) which are
composed of 100% crap?

I know it's "true", but still I think it's one of the 91% of broad
generalizations which are crap.


Trichome
--
Texts available: Grandmother, EM, Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH;
TP:episode guide, timeline, allusions, symbols, Log Lady intros,
Laura's Secret Diary, Cooper's autobioy, On the Air, LH, MD pilot.

http://www.misleader.org/ - follow W.'s Daily Lies
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 02:25:06 UTC
Permalink
"Trichome" <***@earthlink.net> escribi� en el mensaje news:prophit1970-***@news03.east.earthlink.net...


<< [Donnie Darko] And then, what you got with that is a million people
saying the guy's an idiot and the movie turned out to be so good by sheer
luck... >>

< That certainly was the impression I got, upon viewing the extra footage on
the DVD. >


Now that I remember our conversations on the film, this answer must have
sounded like dedicated especifically for you... it was not.


< I would hold out hope that whoever fixed DD has more greatness within
him/her, the potential to fix other films, or to originate his/her own.

Someone must know who it was. >


But many films shoot footage that's later discarded, many times for very
good reasons. I try to judge by what was left in, not out...


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Trichome
2003-09-18 16:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
<<
<< [Donnie Darko] And then, what you got with that is a million people
saying the guy's an idiot and the movie turned out to be so good by sheer
luck... >>
< That certainly was the impression I got, upon viewing the extra footage on
the DVD. >
Now that I remember our conversations on the film, this answer must have
sounded like dedicated especifically for you... it was not.
Not taken that way. As was the prior poster, I'm merely one of
"a million people saying the guy's an idiot and the movie turned out to
be so good by sheer luck".
Post by Henry the Horse
< I would hold out hope that whoever fixed DD has more greatness within
him/her, the potential to fix other films, or to originate his/her own.
Someone must know who it was. >
But many films shoot footage that's later discarded, many times for very
good reasons. I try to judge by what was left in, not out...
I do judge Donnie Darko very favorably, especially when considering
what was left out. I judge that Richard Kelly's next films may likely
stink, because he revealed in the commentary that he didn't intend to
make the film DD turned out to be. Kelly's film sounded like it would
have been disappointing, if not lame.

Someone, an editor or producer from the Bizarro-World "Project:
Redlight" got ahold of Kelly's raw footage, and worked it into a much
better form than that which it would have had, if the auteur(d) been
given the final word.

I've realized a connection which is surprisingly non-weird. Eli Roth
is the director of Kelly's next script after DD, and Roth's Cabin Fever
was supported in ways I can't specifically recall by David Lynch. The
IMDb's dubious review suggests that Cabin Fever didn't know how to end,
either (though I'm not so likely to see that sort of horror film).

Can anyone comment on Kelly's other projects? I see that Richard
Burton Matheson, #2 man on Twilight Zone scripts and prolific author,
was another writer listed for The Box, but I can't say if Kelly rewrote
or co-wrote it with Matheson (now age 77).

Richard Kelly
Writer - filmography

Knowing (2004) (pre-production)
Plot Summary for Knowing (2004)

A water main breaks, resulting in repair crews unearthing an elementary
school's time capsule. But when the chairman of the town's historical
society opens the capsule, he finds more than he bargained for. Full of
children's drawings, the sketches are predictions of the future. But one
child's pictures are much more than ridiculous future worlds. Each
sketch accurately predicts some of the greatest tragedies from the past
fourty years. Only one of the drawings has yet to come true. In a race
against time, the chairman sets out to prevent the last drawing from
becoming a reality.

Box, The (2003/II)
User Rating: awaiting 5 votes

Donnie Darko (2001) (written by)

Visceral Matter (1997)
Genre: Sci-Fi / Short
Plot Outline: A short and goofy film that explores the grisly results in
experiments in teleportation.

User Comments: Not as bad as it sounds
User Rating: awaiting 5 votes


Goodbye Place, The (1996)
Directed by Richard Kelly
Writing credits Richard Kelly
Genre: Short

User Rating: awaiting 5 votes.

--

Director - filmography

Knowing (2004) (pre-production)
Donnie Darko (2001)
Visceral Matter (1997)
Goodbye Place, The (1996)
----------------


Trichome
--
E-Texts available on: Grandmother, EM, Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH;
TP:(episode guide, timeline, allusions, symbols, Log Lady intros,
Laura's Secret Diary, Cooper's autobiog), On the Air, LH, MD pilot.

http://www.misleader.org/
http://www.thousandreasons.org
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 17:39:17 UTC
Permalink
"Trichome" <***@earthlink.net> escribi� en el mensaje news:prophit1970-***@news03.east.earthlink.net...


< Not taken that way. As was the prior poster, I'm merely one of "a
million people saying the guy's an idiot and the movie turned out to be so
good by sheer luck". >


I think the prior poster (RR?) said he was actually expecting Kelly's next,
but I'm too lazy to re-check the post...


< Someone, an editor or producer from the Bizarro-World "Project: Redlight"
got ahold of Kelly's raw footage, and worked it into a much better form than
that which it would have had, if the auteur(d) been given the final word. >


That's not really usual, if it's the prucers' work - they tend to try to
make films more obvious, usually worse than originally intended. I can't say
it's impossible, though.

If it's the editor's work, as I said, it would still be the director's
responsibility -and merit- to accept that new approach.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
The log
2003-09-18 21:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trichome
Not taken that way. As was the prior poster, I'm merely one of
"a million people saying the guy's an idiot and the movie turned out to
be so good by sheer luck".
I try to keep silent about it, but I think Donnie Darko is woefully
self-indulgeant and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is.

It's the performances that make it good, not the direction.


Peace,
The log- I know what I like

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rowandt/
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 01:07:18 UTC
Permalink
"The log" <***@aol.comPLICATE> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@mb-m25.aol.com...


< I try to keep silent about it, but I think Donnie Darko is woefully
self-indulgeant and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is.

It's the performances that make it good, not the direction. >


Why do you try to keep silent about it!?


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
The log
2003-09-19 08:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
< I try to keep silent about it, but I think Donnie Darko is woefully
self-indulgeant and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is.
It's the performances that make it good, not the direction. >
Why do you try to keep silent about it!?
Well, another reason why I don't like it so much is because loads of people I
know (who's tastes in film I could not find more unbearable) have said it's
"well meaningful" and "best film ever". Hence I keep silent.


Peace,
The log- I know what I like

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rowandt/
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 11:17:59 UTC
Permalink
"The log" <***@aol.comPLICATE> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@mb-m28.aol.com...


< Well, another reason why I don't like [Donnie Darko] so much is because
loads of people I know (who's tastes in film I could not find more
unbearable) have said it's "well meaningful" and "best film ever". Hence I
keep silent. >


Hence you should voice your opinion loudly! Anyway, much as I do like the
film, "well meaningful" is really not, and "best film ever"... well, those
things are usually said by people who don't watch that many films in the
first place...


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Trichome
2003-09-19 02:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The log
Post by Trichome
Not taken that way. As was the prior poster, I'm merely one of
"a million people saying the guy's an idiot and the movie turned out to
be so good by sheer luck".
I try to keep silent about it, but I think Donnie Darko is woefully
self-indulgeant and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is.
Yeah, largely. but...
Post by The log
It's the performances that make it good, not the direction.
I see the same glass half full. (which is unusual for me)

DD is much better than it ought to have been. A film which should
have disappeared, given its invisible release, gains something of a cult
status. Yes, maybe it's simple, accessible, juvenile. But I really
enjoy it, nonetheless.


Trichome
--
E-Texts available on: Grandmother, EM, Eraserhead FAQ, Dune, WaH;
TP:(episode guide, timeline, allusions, symbols, Log Lady intros,
Laura's Secret Diary, Cooper's autobiog), On the Air, LH, MD pilot.

http://www.misleader.org/
http://www.thousandreasons.org
Keith Gow
2003-09-19 07:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The log
It's the performances that make it good, not the direction.
What actually is wrong with the direction?

I know I've been dissing the director, but mostly for behind the
scenes stuff - his DVD commentary mainly.

What ended up on screen was fairly tightly directed, actually.

-- Keith Gow --
The log
2003-09-19 08:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
Post by The log
It's the performances that make it good, not the direction.
What actually is wrong with the direction?
Mneeeeh... I might mean script. I need to watch it again.


Peace,
The log- I know what I like

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rowandt/
Keith Gow
2003-09-20 04:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by The log
Post by Keith Gow
Post by The log
It's the performances that make it good, not the direction.
What actually is wrong with the direction?
Mneeeeh... I might mean script. I need to watch it again.
The script is a problem, yes, but even that is helped by the acting,
directing and the film's mood.

I certainly think it is overrated by many people - mostly those who
wouldn't have seen this type of film before.

-- Keith Gow --
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-18 22:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trichome
I've realized a connection which is surprisingly non-weird. Eli Roth
is the director of Kelly's next script after DD, and Roth's Cabin Fever
was supported in ways I can't specifically recall by David Lynch.
This is disappointing news already. Cabin Fever is one of the most
astoundingly godawful movies ever made.
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-17 13:58:43 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote...
Post by Henry the Horse
<< I'd like to think that they don't try to be. As I said earlier, they're
substitutes for all those other more or less crap action movies we've been
having forever. >>
< Well they ~are~ that, yes...and I suppose in that regard, we should be
grateful. Of course, in a perfect world, as Pikemann mentioned, it'd be nice
if the money funnelled into these pictures was used to make 4 or 5 smaller
films. >
But don't blockbusters more or less help finance the others? I have no idea
how this works in the US, but in Spain, where I live, it's certainly that
way. At least indirectly, in the same way that advertising funds cinema, ie,
by paying outrageous prices to cinema people who then can work for almost
nothing on real cinema, or by having blockbusters maintain distribution
chains that wouldn't be able to stay in business otherwise and also
distribute the smaller films, etc. I've always read about the US how two
successful blckbusters make possible 8 smaller films.
Obviously, this only proves what you said - that this is not a perfect
world.
Far from perfect.
Even if Blockbusters would help finance smaller films it's always smaller
films within studios and their rules, which rarely leads to any
ground-breaking results. And thus a smaller film never guarantees anything
about quality...

The financing methods of Europe are far more healthy, although not that
great either... But of course the problem is always lack of talent.
Post by Henry the Horse
<< I dunno... you may very well be right. I personally think the true black
hole for the most commercial cinema was that time in the 80's where
everything had to be a stupid teen comedy... >>
< Let's just go a little further back and blame Lucas and Spielberg. That's
always a safe, easy bet. >
Ah no, that's my line in the sand, sir! I firmly believe that there actually
should be more Lucases and Spielbergs. I wish it was always people like
those two in charge of the light entertainment!
If only Spielberg hadn't developed any delusions about his capabilities as a
dramatist...
Post by Henry the Horse
< Where are the Lynchs and Cronenbergs and Gilliams of today? They're
sitting at home or working some shitty video store job, not getting any
financing, that's where. >
Mmmm... that's a great question. I'd blame 50% on the way the industry
works, but another 50% on (excuse the cliché) the MTV generation, where most
new filmmakers know a lot about visuals and mostly nothing about anything
else.
Fincher and Jonze came out of directing music videos and commercials, so I'm
not going to believe MTV is all bad... But the way MTV and commercials
control mainstream visual culture actually seems pretty bad.

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 02:58:30 UTC
Permalink
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <***@welho.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bk9pag$8dn$***@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


Warning: This reply contains references to things we've discussed a million
times. Read at your own risk! :-)


< Even if Blockbusters would help finance smaller films it's always smaller
films within studios and their rules, which rarely leads to any
ground-breaking results. And thus a smaller film never guarantees anything
about quality... >


Ergo, if a film is "big" or "smaller," that doesn't say anything about its
quality.


< The financing methods of Europe are far more healthy, although not that
great either... But of course the problem is always lack of talent. >


I can only say this about Spain, not because it's how I like it, but because
it's how it obviously turned out to be: By applying "European" financing
methods (ie, state financing) we got some overbudgeted films that very
quickly made their way into utter oblivion.

When that was abandoned in favor of funding (er, post-funding... whatever)
movies based on how well they did at the box office, then we got the best
films in many years. None of our best directors today owe anything to state
funding, including Almodóvar, Amenábar and others.


< If only Spielberg hadn't developed any delusions about his capabilities as
a dramatist... >


You're certainly bold in your statements. Until today I had never heard
anyone really questioning Spielberg's capabilities - even those who
downright hate his films.


< Fincher and Jonze came out of directing music videos and commercials, so
I'm not going to believe MTV is all bad... >


Oh, there are more - nothing can be all bad. Anyway, I don't consider
Fincher to be as great as many people think -in my mind, he's only done one
really good movie-, and Jonze, well, time will tell. From that MTV
generation, I think I'd prefer Cameron Crowe - my opinion about him as
improved considerably, and he's the less MTV-ish of the lot anyway... :-)


< But the way MTV and commercials control mainstream visual culture actually
seems pretty bad. >


As someone who spent 20 years working on commercials, I can tell you this -
commercials do what MTV does. So at least MTV is original...

What I strongly question is that what works for four minutes, tends to get
pretty weak for two hours.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-19 07:42:02 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote...
Post by Henry the Horse
< The financing methods of Europe are far more healthy, although not that
great either... But of course the problem is always lack of talent. >
I can only say this about Spain, not because it's how I like it, but because
it's how it obviously turned out to be: By applying "European" financing
methods (ie, state financing) we got some overbudgeted films that very
quickly made their way into utter oblivion.
When that was abandoned in favor of funding (er, post-funding... whatever)
movies based on how well they did at the box office, then we got the best
films in many years. None of our best directors today owe anything to state
funding, including Almodóvar, Amenábar and others.
In a country where there's barely 5 million people it's extremely difficult
for a film to make profit. The most succesful Finnish film in recent years
(which sucked) might have made a few nickels without state funding...

What I meant is how there's more and more films made with money from all
over the world... Lars von Trier is a good example.
Post by Henry the Horse
< If only Spielberg hadn't developed any delusions about his capabilities as
a dramatist... >
You're certainly bold in your statements. Until today I had never heard
anyone really questioning Spielberg's capabilities - even those who
downright hate his films.
Why?!?

His "drama" is suryp-filled sentimentalization and moralization... Plus he
has the weirdest of all talents to fuck up ALL of his serious films with
their ending. A.I., Schindler's List, Minority Report...
Post by Henry the Horse
< Fincher and Jonze came out of directing music videos and commercials, so
I'm not going to believe MTV is all bad... >
Oh, there are more - nothing can be all bad. Anyway, I don't consider
Fincher to be as great as many people think -in my mind, he's only done one
really good movie-, and Jonze, well, time will tell. From that MTV
generation, I think I'd prefer Cameron Crowe - my opinion about him as
improved considerably, and he's the less MTV-ish of the lot anyway... :-)
Fincher has a great eye for concepts and I wish he made more films like 'The
Game' and 'Fight Club'... Cameron Crowe is sentimentally speaking pretty
entertaining, but none of his films have any serious ideas.

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 11:14:58 UTC
Permalink
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <***@welho.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bkec05$oia$***@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


< In a country where there's barely 5 million people it's extremely
difficult for a film to make profit. The most succesful Finnish film in
recent years (which sucked) might have made a few nickels without state
funding... >


Ah... yes, I guess you're right.

Is that film The Man Without A Past? I'm sure it's made more money overseas
than at home. Which is not to say you're wrong, now that I better understand
what you said.


< What I meant is how there's more and more films made with money from all
over the world... Lars von Trier is a good example. >


Mmm... Let me be facetious here: Almost no blockbuster is made with only
American money anymore.


< [Spielberg... again] His "drama" is suryp-filled sentimentalization and
moralization... Plus he has the weirdest of all talents to fuck up ALL of
his serious films with their ending. A.I., Schindler's List, Minority
Report... >


I really can't add anything to this that we haven't already discussed.

Let's just say, the other day I re-watched Empire Of The Sun for the first
time since it was on cinemas. While there are obviously many scenes where he
overdoes the sentimentality (way more than he does now), it would be
completely wrong not to acknowledge that this man has more cinema in one of
his pinkies than 99% of other directors have in their entire bodies.

I'm sorry if you dislike his approach to cinema, but that's all it is: your
dislking it - that doesn't say anything per se about his qualities, but
about your personal tastes.


< Fincher has a great eye for concepts and I wish he made more films like
'The Game' and 'Fight Club'... >


Funny, for me The Game and Fight Club are completely opposed. And, BTW, The
Game is 100% about plot!


< Cameron Crowe is sentimentally speaking pretty entertaining, but none of
his films have any serious ideas. >


Again, we disagree on what "serious ideas" are. I feel you use that as if it
was a synonim of "new" or "revolutionary" or something.

But it strikes me as odd how you can find three more times "serious ideas"
than it really has for Eyes Wide Shut, and still find no serious idea at all
in, say, Almost Famous...



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-19 19:24:33 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote...
Post by Henry the Horse
< In a country where there's barely 5 million people it's extremely
difficult for a film to make profit. The most succesful Finnish film in
recent years (which sucked) might have made a few nickels without state
funding... >
Ah... yes, I guess you're right.
Is that film The Man Without A Past?
God, no! TMWAP is a quality film. ...I haven't heard about its profits...
Post by Henry the Horse
< What I meant is how there's more and more films made with money from all
over the world... Lars von Trier is a good example. >
Mmm... Let me be facetious here: Almost no blockbuster is made with only
American money anymore.
Yeah, but it's still big studios that control the money. In Europe you have
a lot of different types of sources for funds (eg tv-companies)...
Post by Henry the Horse
< Fincher has a great eye for concepts and I wish he made more films like
'The Game' and 'Fight Club'... >
Funny, for me The Game and Fight Club are completely opposed. And, BTW, The
Game is 100% about plot!
No, Panic Room is 100% about plot. The Game's real value is its concept.
Plus Fincher's dark depiction of the world is always interesting even if his
films have distinct plot-devices...
Post by Henry the Horse
< Cameron Crowe is sentimentally speaking pretty entertaining, but none of
his films have any serious ideas. >
Again, we disagree on what "serious ideas" are. I feel you use that as if it
was a synonim of "new" or "revolutionary" or something.
No. Some remark or concept that has to do with the culture we live in.
Post by Henry the Horse
But it strikes me as odd how you can find three more times "serious ideas"
than it really has for Eyes Wide Shut, and still find no serious idea at all
in, say, Almost Famous...
Now give me a serious idea in Almost Famous.

(btw, I resent your attitude towards intellectual reading of films...
being more down to earth doesn't make you more intelligent)

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com

"If you enjoyed the Little Nicky storyline, our new
line of visual and hearing aids is just for you."
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 20:56:16 UTC
Permalink
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <***@welho.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bkfl5c$n0b$***@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


<< Mmm... Let me be facetious here: Almost no blockbuster is made with only
American money anymore. >>

< Yeah, but it's still big studios that control the money. In Europe you
have a lot of different types of sources for funds (eg tv-companies)... >


Yes, in Europe directors are more important. The studios and (more
ridiculously) the actors can't boss them around so much.


<< Funny, for me The Game and Fight Club are completely opposed. And, BTW,
The Game is 100% about plot! >>

< No, Panic Room is 100% about plot. The Game's real value is its concept. >


Whatever...

See where a concept like that would take you without a plot making it go
forward.


< Plus Fincher's dark depiction of the world is always interesting even if
his films have distinct plot-devices... >


If that implies Panic Room has any kind of value besides 120-minutes
entertaining, then I totally disagree.


<<< Cameron Crowe is sentimentally speaking pretty entertaining, but none of
his films have any serious ideas. >>>

<< Again, we disagree on what "serious ideas" are. I feel you use that as if
it was a synonim of "new" or "revolutionary" or something. >>

< No. Some remark or concept that has to do with the culture we live in. >


Er, Cameron Crowe is 100% about the culture we live in...

I *think* I understand what you mean, but really, that example isn't very
fortunate.


<< But it strikes me as odd how you can find three more times "serious
ideas" than it really has for Eyes Wide Shut, and still find no serious idea
at all in, say, Almost Famous... >>

< Now give me a serious idea in Almost Famous. >


Nah, I won't even try, we're too far apart on this subject. Whatever I say
will be deemed non-serious for any esoteric reason.


< (btw, I resent your attitude towards intellectual reading of films...
being more down to earth doesn't make you more intelligent) >


I don't know how the hell does being more intelligent or not figures in all
of this. If we're going to speak in these terms, do you think over-analyzing
brings you a milimeter closer to the "truth" about a film? Or does it make
you see more and more things that were never really there?

Obvious example would be your comment on music in Eyes Wide Shut being "a
commentary on the role of art in our society." Read Rolling Stone's
interview with Kubrick about Full Metal Jacket on exactly this same subject.



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-19 21:21:35 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote simplifications...
Post by Henry the Horse
<< Funny, for me The Game and Fight Club are completely opposed. And, BTW,
The Game is 100% about plot! >>
< No, Panic Room is 100% about plot. The Game's real value is its concept.
Whatever...
See where a concept like that would take you without a plot making it go
forward.
The emptiness of our lives in all of our wealth and posession has been
depicted without making plot-twists and thriller-influences...
Post by Henry the Horse
< Plus Fincher's dark depiction of the world is always interesting even if
his films have distinct plot-devices... >
If that implies Panic Room has any kind of value besides 120-minutes
entertaining, then I totally disagree.
Well, I couldn't figure out any reason why I or anyone else would bother to
watch that film after ten or fifteen years.
Post by Henry the Horse
< (btw, I resent your attitude towards intellectual reading of films...
being more down to earth doesn't make you more intelligent) >
I don't know how the hell does being more intelligent or not figures in all
of this.
You place yourself above over-analyzing.
Post by Henry the Horse
If we're going to speak in these terms, do you think over-analyzing
I don't call it over-analyzing. I call it simply analyzing.
And, yes, I do think it sometimes brings me closer to the "truth".

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com

"If you enjoyed the Little Nicky storyline, our new
line of visual and hearing aids is just for you."
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 23:19:31 UTC
Permalink
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <***@welho.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bkfs0r$ge$***@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


< [Panic Room] The emptiness of our lives in all of our wealth and posession
has been depicted without making plot-twists and thriller-influences... >


Sorry, but I really really couldn't disagree more with this. Not only I
think your interpretation is way overdone, but saying that Panic Room
doesn't use plot twists and thriller influences... well, it's (sorry again)
so ridiculous, that I really think Fincher must have done two movies with
the same name, and we've seen different ones.


<<< (btw, I resent your attitude towards intellectual reading of films...
being more down to earth doesn't make you more intelligent) >>>

<< I don't know how the hell does being more intelligent or not figures in
all of this. >>

< You place yourself above over-analyzing. >


I place myself *against* over-analyzing.


< I don't call it over-analyzing. I call it simply analyzing.
And, yes, I do think it sometimes brings me closer to the "truth". >


OK, let me tell you my patent-pending "fried egg" analogy:

You have an egg. You want to taste a fried egg. Eat the egg raw, and you
won't get what you wanted. Overdo it at the frying pan, and you'll get even
less.

Cool analogy, eh? :-)



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-20 07:59:00 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote...
Post by Henry the Horse
< [Panic Room] The emptiness of our lives in all of our wealth and posession
has been depicted without making plot-twists and thriller-influences... >
Sorry, but I really really couldn't disagree more with this. Not only I
think your interpretation is way overdone, but saying that Panic Room
doesn't use plot twists and thriller influences... well, it's (sorry again)
so ridiculous, that I really think Fincher must have done two movies with
the same name, and we've seen different ones.
Terrible misunderstanding here... We were talking about 'The Game' here. And
I meant that the concept of 'The Game' is important... so it's not 100%
about plot and being a thriller.

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com

"If you enjoyed the Little Nicky storyline, our new
line of visual and hearing aids is just for you."
Henry the Horse
2003-09-20 11:20:01 UTC
Permalink
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <***@welho.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bkh1bt$i0r$***@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


< Terrible misunderstanding here... We were talking about 'The Game' here.
And I meant that the concept of 'The Game' is important... so it's not 100%
about plot and being a thriller. >


Ahhh... I didn't think that, even with our differences, we could have been
talking about the same movie.

In any case, most I what I said about Panic Room would also apply to The
Game...


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-20 11:27:25 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote...
Post by Henry the Horse
< Terrible misunderstanding here... We were talking about 'The Game' here.
And I meant that the concept of 'The Game' is important... so it's not 100%
about plot and being a thriller. >
Ahhh... I didn't think that, even with our differences, we could have been
talking about the same movie.
In any case, most I what I said about Panic Room would also apply to The
Game...
Well, then you've never given much thought to 'The Game' really... It's not
a perfect or groundbreaking film, but I think what's smart about it is that
it's deeper than seems it is.

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com

"If you enjoyed the Little Nicky storyline, our new
line of visual and hearing aids is just for you."
Henry the Horse
2003-09-20 13:16:08 UTC
Permalink
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <***@welho.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bkhdim$5i6$***@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


< Well, then you've never given much thought to 'The Game' really... >


Yes, I admit that's true.


< It's not a perfect or groundbreaking film, but I think what's smart about
it is that it's deeper than seems it is. >


I dunno... Of course there's some comment of the money doesn't buy you
happiness kind, and a notion that people with money can act like the rest of
humanity are only extras in their own life, and the fleeting nature of power
etc. I wouldn't call any of that "deep" in any level on that movie, but
please feel free to explain.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-20 15:59:32 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote...
Post by Henry the Horse
< Well, then you've never given much thought to 'The Game' really... >
Yes, I admit that's true.
< It's not a perfect or groundbreaking film, but I think what's smart about
it is that it's deeper than seems it is. >
I dunno... Of course there's some comment of the money doesn't buy you
happiness kind, and a notion that people with money can act like the rest of
humanity are only extras in their own life, and the fleeting nature of power
etc. I wouldn't call any of that "deep" in any level on that movie, but
please feel free to explain.
Isn't it pretty nice observation of our times that the best birthday present
we could ever have is a trip out of the security of our home, our wealth...?
Here's a guy (and there's plenty of other guys who have been through it as
well) who's life is so darn empty that he's not only willing, but needing,
to pay zillions for simulated emotions... The brilliant part of the movie of
course is that the audience has paid to feel the simulation of simulated
emotions and "a brilliant plot-twist"...

There's a lot of social/consumerism critique in the film if you look at it
from that point of view. For instance, the name of the company that gets the
game rolling is called Consumer Recreation Services...

I liked how Fincher described in an interview 'The Game' as a cousin of
'Fight Club'...

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com

"If you enjoyed the Little Nicky storyline, our new
line of visual and hearing aids is just for you."
Henry the Horse
2003-09-20 16:58:33 UTC
Permalink
"Mikko Pihkoluoma" <***@welho.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:bkhtgt$s8o$***@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...


< [The Game] Isn't it pretty nice observation of our times that the best
birthday present we could ever have is a trip out of the security of our
home, our wealth...? Here's a guy (and there's plenty of other guys who have
been through it as well) who's life is so darn empty that he's not only
willing, but needing, to pay zillions for simulated emotions... The
brilliant part of the movie of course is that the audience has paid to feel
the simulation of simulated emotions and "a brilliant plot-twist"...

There's a lot of social/consumerism critique in the film if you look at it
from that point of view. For instance, the name of the company that gets the
game rolling is called Consumer Recreation Services... >


You see all that much in The Game but nothing important in Almost Famous!?

(Random example.)


< I liked how Fincher described in an interview 'The Game' as a cousin of
'Fight Club'... >


That would only show the dangers of inbreeding... :-)



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Mikko Pihkoluoma
2003-09-20 17:20:45 UTC
Permalink
"Henry the Horse" wrote...
Post by Henry the Horse
< [The Game] Isn't it pretty nice observation of our times that the best
birthday present we could ever have is a trip out of the security of our
home, our wealth...? Here's a guy (and there's plenty of other guys who have
been through it as well) who's life is so darn empty that he's not only
willing, but needing, to pay zillions for simulated emotions... The
brilliant part of the movie of course is that the audience has paid to feel
the simulation of simulated emotions and "a brilliant plot-twist"...
There's a lot of social/consumerism critique in the film if you look at it
from that point of view. For instance, the name of the company that gets the
game rolling is called Consumer Recreation Services... >
You see all that much in The Game but nothing important in Almost Famous!?
No, not really. Nothing constructive.
I like the movie, but AF is first and foremost a character-study...
Post by Henry the Horse
< I liked how Fincher described in an interview 'The Game' as a cousin of
'Fight Club'... >
That would only show the dangers of inbreeding... :-)
Hehe...

Mikko
--
mpihkolu at welho dot com

"If you enjoyed the Little Nicky storyline, our new
line of visual and hearing aids is just for you."
Darth Nub
2003-09-15 15:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by RR
The day Lynch tackles any kind of mainstream superhero/comic book is the day
he and I go our separate ways. (Sure, it's easy to say that in the vastness
of cyberspace...but it would be mondo depressing and a sure sign of the
coming film apocalypse.)
Frankly, I'm bored with all of these hip, up and coming directors selling
out and going in this direction. It's become predictable.
Well, I never thought it would happen, but if he read the comic, he'd
probably be vaguely interested, or at least enjoy it. It's not
mainstream at all.

(And yes, Henry, Year One is better, but I don't think that'll be the
movie we see, even if it is 'based' on it)

Whatever happened to that project he was developing years ago, 'Ronnie
Rocket' or something? Everything I read about it was pretty vague, but
it sounded like a type of warped pulp hero / detective story.

And while we're on the topic of Lynch in the mainstream, I recently
finished reading the deeply flawed, infuriating, but undeniably
interesting, autobiography of Julia Phillips, "You'll Never Eat Lunch
In This Town Again". While she was in the development stages of
'Interview With The Vampire', virtually every studio exec she talked
to wanted Lynch to direct it. The dates in the book are very difficult
to figure out, but this would have been around 1988/89. He was a
pretty hot property at the time, seen as an interesting newcomer just
ready to be snapped up & consumed by the machinery of Hollywood.

Thank fuck THAT didn't happen...

Darth
Henry the Horse
2003-09-15 19:55:02 UTC
Permalink
"Darth Nub" <***@hotmail.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@posting.google.com...


< Well, I never thought it would happen, but if he read the comic, he'd
probably be vaguely interested, or at least enjoy it. It's not mainstream at
all. >


It was fairly mainstream for its time, in the "adults" section. In fact,
those were the years heavily marked by the abuse of that kind of stories.
The only *slight* difference is that DC used Batman instead of some
half-forgotten character from a couple of decades before - and the hype it
provoked.

Would Lynch be vaguely interested? I don't picture him making super-heroes,
but who knows. And why should it? Just because it's generally "weird"?


< (And yes, Henry, Year One is better, but I don't think that'll be the
movie we see, even if it is 'based' on it) >


You're probably right... Year One, however, is not as, er, heavy-loaded as
Dark Knight Returns, or Give Me Liberty, or other Miller works. In fact, if
you think about it, it's not heavier than many 70's thrillers. Of course,
this is not the 70's any more...


< Whatever happened to that project he was developing years ago, 'Ronnie
Rocket' or something? Everything I read about it was pretty vague, but it
sounded like a type of warped pulp hero / detective story. >


Have you read the script? (www.lynchnet.com/rrscript.html) I'd die to see
that film! Supposedly he first worked on it as his second film after
Eraserhead. However, as late as by the time of The Straight Story, he said
in an interview he'd still love to do it, but he faced serious technical
problems to bring his vision to the screen.

Later, he more or less implied he was toying with the idea of turning it
into a comic, but I never heard anything else about it.


< And while we're on the topic of Lynch in the mainstream, I recently
finished reading the deeply flawed, infuriating, but undeniably interesting,
autobiography of Julia Phillips, "You'll Never Eat Lunch In This Town
Again". While she was in the development stages of 'Interview With The
Vampire', virtually every studio exec she talked to wanted Lynch to direct
it. The dates in the book are very difficult to figure out, but this would
have been around 1988/89. He was a pretty hot property at the time, seen as
an interesting newcomer just ready to be snapped up & consumed by the
machinery of Hollywood.

Thank fuck THAT didn't happen... >


I bet the studios still would love that. Or at least, doing with him as they
did with Cronenberg - a couple of hits and then let him go his merry way.
Thank fuck that didn't happen, indeed!


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Patrick MM
2003-09-14 23:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darth Nub
Batman 5: Arkham Asylum
Directed by David Lynch
Screenplay by David Lynch & Grant Morrison
Batman - Kyle Machlachlan
The Joker - Brad Dourif
Amadeus Arkham - Max Von Sydow
Two-Face - Dennis Hopper
I've read the comic, and that would be incredible. A Lynch/Morrison
collaboration would be on another plane of existence.

Patrick
Henry the Horse
2003-09-14 23:46:36 UTC
Permalink
"Darth Nub" <***@hotmail.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@posting.google.com...


< Batman 5: Arkham Asylum
Directed by David Lynch
Screenplay by David Lynch & Grant Morrison [...]
Silly? Read the comic... >


Now that's (excuse me) a bad idea. Give Batman back to Tim Burton!

And anyway, Year One is way better than the overrated Arkham Asylum!
Morrison is indeed one of the top 3 comics writers today, but Arkham is one
of his worse works -though Dave McKean is of course superb.



Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
tom vx
2003-09-15 07:48:33 UTC
Permalink
here's a david lynch superhero movie that **I*** want to see made (and
i'm sure HTH would agree....

Loading Image...

hehehe
Henry the Horse
2003-09-15 11:35:41 UTC
Permalink
"tom vx" <***@vxmusic.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@posting.google.com...


< here's a david lynch superhero movie that **I*** want to see made (and i'm
sure HTH would agree....

http://www.vxmusic.net/superhero2.jpg >


LOL!!!!!!

But I thought you said I could be your sidekick, not that weirdo! I know how
to neigh backwards too!


This is extremely unfair,
~Henry the Horse~
tom vx
2003-09-16 20:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
Post by Henry the Horse
http://www.vxmusic.net/superhero2.jpg >
LOL!!!!!!
But I thought you said I could be your sidekick, not that weirdo! I know how
to neigh backwards too!
waitwaitwait... michael anderson as the penguin is AWESOME, and of
course it's going to seem strange to you, this is a david lynch film.

and yes, you can be my sidekick (you have to keep up on that evil
laugh though!!!), MJA/penguin is more of an alliance of evilness
thing... basically i am using him as bait so i can destroy ben affleck
and tobey macguire.

anyway, i need you to kick tobey in the head with your hoof feet of
doom (tm).
Post by Henry the Horse
This is extremely unfair
since when hav you known supervillans to be fair???? :)
Henry the Horse
2003-09-17 03:34:26 UTC
Permalink
"tom vx" <***@vxmusic.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@posting.google.com...


< waitwaitwait... michael anderson as the penguin is AWESOME, and of course
it's going to seem strange to you, this is a david lynch film. >


Yes, this Lynch *is* kinda weird, isn't he? I mean, casting Lara Flynn Boyle
and all... that's not normal.


< and yes, you can be my sidekick (you have to keep up on that evil laugh
though!!!), >


BWAH HAH HAH cough cough... HAH... sputter... cough...

Hey, I'm working on it, alright? :-)


< MJA/penguin is more of an alliance of evilness thing... basically i am
using him as bait so i can destroy ben affleck and tobey macguire.

anyway, i need you to kick tobey in the head with your hoof feet of doom
(tm). >


LOL! But don't forget my other secret weapon: pinching a special nerve in
the neck of the enemy, while whispering incessantly "fruit punch would be
nice, thank you".


<< This is extremely unfair >>

< since when hav you known supervillans to be fair???? :) >


Mmm, you're right... just in case, I want my sidekick allowance in advance,
please!



Of course,
~Henry the (now artificially happy... as if it didn't show) Horse~
tom vx
2003-09-17 21:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
< and yes, you can be my sidekick (you have to keep up on that evil laugh
though!!!), >
BWAH HAH HAH cough cough... HAH... sputter... cough...
Hey, I'm working on it, alright? :-)
keep trying! it goes like this...

"hello, i just put a live badger in your pants. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"
Post by Henry the Horse
< MJA/penguin is more of an alliance of evilness thing... basically i am
using him as bait so i can destroy ben affleck and tobey macguire.
anyway, i need you to kick tobey in the head with your hoof feet of doom
(tm). >
LOL! But don't forget my other secret weapon: pinching a special nerve in
the neck of the enemy, while whispering incessantly "fruit punch would be
nice, thank you".
that IS talent. not only do you tap directly into the nexxus of evil
by acting like james, but you also manage to pinch... with a hoof!
talent! :)
Post by Henry the Horse
<< This is extremely unfair >>
< since when hav you known supervillans to be fair???? :) >
Mmm, you're right... just in case, I want my sidekick allowance in advance,
please!
will do, and i'll try not to slip you any counterfeits.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (see how easy that was?)
Post by Henry the Horse
Of course,
~Henry the (now artificially happy... as if it didn't show) Horse~
that makes you sound like a robot... now, if you were a robotic evil
horse with a megalomania complex who could disguise himself like james
and pinch people's faint-y nerves with his obotic hoof- all while
laughing maniacally, of course- well, damn, that would warrant you
getting your own film! :)
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-17 23:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tom vx
that makes you sound like a robot... now, if you were a robotic evil
horse with a megalomania complex who could disguise himself like james
and pinch people's faint-y nerves with his obotic hoof- all while
laughing maniacally, of course- well, damn, that would warrant you
getting your own film! :)
Give me a week. I can come up with a script for that.
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 03:47:26 UTC
Permalink
"Joshua Zyber" <***@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:0X5ab.27662$***@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...


<< that makes you sound like a robot... now, if you were a robotic evil
horse with a megalomania complex who could disguise himself like james and
pinch people's faint-y nerves with his obotic hoof- all while laughing
maniacally, of course- well, damn, that would warrant you getting your own
film! :) >>

< Give me a week. I can come up with a script for that. >


Remember it has to have very prominent roles for Mädchen Amick, Peggy
Lipton, Anna Paquin, Tori Amos, Halle Berry, Beverley Craven, Winona Ryder,
Naomi Campbell, Sarah Polley, Natalie Portman, Liz Hurley, Lucy Liu, Kristin
Scott-Thomas, Caroline Corr, Helena Bonham Carter, Joan Chen, and yes,
Penélope Cruz. You can do it!


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-18 04:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
<< that makes you sound like a robot... now, if you were a robotic evil
horse with a megalomania complex who could disguise himself like james and
pinch people's faint-y nerves with his obotic hoof- all while laughing
maniacally, of course- well, damn, that would warrant you getting your own
film! :) >>
< Give me a week. I can come up with a script for that. >
Remember it has to have very prominent roles for Mädchen Amick, Peggy
Lipton, Anna Paquin, Tori Amos, Halle Berry, Beverley Craven, Winona Ryder,
Naomi Campbell, Sarah Polley, Natalie Portman, Liz Hurley, Lucy Liu, Kristin
Scott-Thomas, Caroline Corr, Helena Bonham Carter, Joan Chen, and yes,
Penélope Cruz.
Well, duh. You say this as if it weren't obvious.

Penelope Cruz's role will be brief, however. She plays someone who has
been hit in the face repeatedly with a baseball bat. Fortunately, this
will require no special makeup in Cruz's case. That should save us on
the budget.
Keith Gow
2003-09-18 07:10:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:39:37 GMT, "Joshua Zyber"
Post by Joshua Zyber
Penelope Cruz's role will be brief, however. She plays someone who has
been hit in the face repeatedly with a baseball bat. Fortunately, this
will require no special makeup in Cruz's case. That should save us on
the budget.
I'm no Cruz fan either but - harsh!

-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 17:24:47 UTC
Permalink
"Keith Gow" <***@vicnet.net.au> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...


<< Penelope Cruz's role will be brief, however. She plays someone who has
been hit in the face repeatedly with a baseball bat. Fortunately, this will
require no special makeup in Cruz's case. That should save us on the budget.
< I'm no Cruz fan either but - harsh! >


It's kind of a running "joke" with Josh about Penélope - though lately he's
upgraded from frying pan to basball bat.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-18 22:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
<< Penelope Cruz's role will be brief, however. She plays someone who has
been hit in the face repeatedly with a baseball bat. Fortunately, this will
require no special makeup in Cruz's case. That should save us on the budget.
< I'm no Cruz fan either but - harsh! >
It's kind of a running "joke" with Josh about Penélope - though lately he's
upgraded from frying pan to basball bat.
If Penelope isn't available, I'll try to borrow the prosthetic face
piece used in the last episode of Nip/Tuck (anyone who watches the show
will know the one I mean). Then we'll just credit Cruz in the credits
and no one will know the difference.
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 01:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua Zyber
Post by Henry the Horse
<< Penelope Cruz's role will be brief, however. She plays someone who
has
Post by Henry the Horse
been hit in the face repeatedly with a baseball bat. Fortunately, this
will
Post by Henry the Horse
require no special makeup in Cruz's case. That should save us on the
budget.
Post by Henry the Horse
< I'm no Cruz fan either but - harsh! >
It's kind of a running "joke" with Josh about Penélope - though lately
he's
Post by Henry the Horse
upgraded from frying pan to basball bat.
If Penelope isn't available, I'll try to borrow the prosthetic face
piece used in the last episode of Nip/Tuck (anyone who watches the show
will know the one I mean). Then we'll just credit Cruz in the credits
and no one will know the difference.
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 01:15:42 UTC
Permalink
"Joshua Zyber" <***@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:uAqab.37046$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...


< If Penelope isn't available, I'll try to borrow the prosthetic face piece
used in the last episode of Nip/Tuck (anyone who watches the show will know
the one I mean). Then we'll just credit Cruz in the credits and no one will
know the difference. >


Attention people who want Josh to continue posting here: He's about to get
sued for slander, difamation, and having no taste whatsoever, unless he
repeats this publicly:

1) Penélope Cruz is totally, completely gorgeous (or she was until she went
to Hollywood)
2) Penélope Cruz is most definitely not a 12-year old boy.
3) Britannia rules the waves.

Don't think I'm not capable of it!


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-19 03:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
Attention people who want Josh to continue posting here: He's about to get
sued for slander, difamation, and having no taste whatsoever, unless he
1) Penélope Cruz is totally, completely gorgeous (or she was until she went
to Hollywood)
2) Penélope Cruz is most definitely not a 12-year old boy.
3) Britannia rules the waves.
1) Penélope Cruz is totally, completely a 12-year old boy (or she was
until she went to Hollywood).
2) Penélope Cruz is most definitely not gorgeous.
3) Britannia rules the waves.

Is that close enough? All the words you want are in there.
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 04:24:40 UTC
Permalink
"Joshua Zyber" <***@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:37vab.37343$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

<< Attention people who want Josh to continue posting here: He's about to
get sued for slander, difamation, and having no taste whatsoever, unless he
repeats this publicly:

1) Penélope Cruz is totally, completely gorgeous (or she was until she went
to Hollywood)
2) Penélope Cruz is most definitely not a 12-year old boy.
3) Britannia rules the waves.

< 1) Penélope Cruz is totally, completely a 12-year old boy (or she was
until she went to Hollywood).
2) Penélope Cruz is most definitely not gorgeous.
3) Britannia rules the waves.

Is that close enough? All the words you want are in there. >


Ah, what the hell, don't let it be said I'm not magnanimous. OK, I won't sue
you -this time.

Feel free to continue posting here. :-)


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 17:17:41 UTC
Permalink
"Joshua Zyber" <***@SPAMMERS-DROP-DEAD.mindspring.com> escribió en el
mensaje news:dGaab.34384$***@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...


< Penelope Cruz's role will be brief, however. She plays someone who has
been hit in the face repeatedly with a baseball bat. Fortunately, this will
require no special makeup in Cruz's case. That should save us on the budget.
OK, but then you'll have to also include Denise Richards, where there's that
horrible accident at the balloon factory and she gets completely filled with
helium.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Keith Gow
2003-09-19 07:19:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:17:41 +0200, "Henry the Horse"
Post by Henry the Horse
OK, but then you'll have to also include Denise Richards,
The funniest thing ever was on here last week - the first episode of
MTV's "Punk'd" where Denise Richards was on a red carpet and an 8 year
old plant asked her "What's it like to play a smart person?"

-- Keith Gow --
Henry the Horse
2003-09-19 10:33:36 UTC
Permalink
"Keith Gow" <***@vicnet.net.au> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@News.CIS.DFN.DE...


< The funniest thing ever was on here last week - the first episode of MTV's
"Punk'd" where Denise Richards was on a red carpet and an 8 year old plant
asked her "What's it like to play a smart person?" >


Bwah hah hah hah!!!

I *have* to see that!


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-19 23:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
Post by Henry the Horse
OK, but then you'll have to also include Denise Richards,
The funniest thing ever was on here last week - the first episode of
MTV's "Punk'd" where Denise Richards was on a red carpet and an 8 year
old plant asked her "What's it like to play a smart person?"
heh... That show has some surprisingly good set-ups. The pieces about
Eliza Dushku and Justin Timberlake are both classics.
Keith Gow
2003-09-20 04:05:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 23:07:30 GMT, "Joshua Zyber"
Post by Joshua Zyber
Post by Keith Gow
Post by Henry the Horse
OK, but then you'll have to also include Denise Richards,
The funniest thing ever was on here last week - the first episode of
MTV's "Punk'd" where Denise Richards was on a red carpet and an 8 year
old plant asked her "What's it like to play a smart person?"
heh... That show has some surprisingly good set-ups. The pieces about
Eliza Dushku and Justin Timberlake are both classics.
Yes, I was quite pleased with both - because Timberlake was on the
verge of tears and Dushku is sexy when she's angry.

-- Keith Gow --
damnfine
2003-09-20 07:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
Yes, I was quite pleased with both - because Timberlake was on the
verge of tears and Dushku is sexy when she's angry.
Angry, calm, asleep, on fire, picking her nose...


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!" - Morbo
The log
2003-09-20 11:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
I was quite pleased with both - because Timberlake was on the
verge of tears
Ah! I hate Justin Timberlake- what happened to him??

(has anyone seen the Pierce Brosnan one?)


Peace,
The log- I know what I like

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rowandt/
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-20 15:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The log
Post by Keith Gow
I was quite pleased with both - because Timberlake was on the
verge of tears
Ah! I hate Justin Timberlake- what happened to him??
They showed up at his house pretending to be IRS agents. They told him
that his manager had swindled him out of millions of dollars and they
were confiscating his home, cars, and all of his valuable possessions,
and that he was essentially penniless. Then they made a big show out of
dropping boxes supposedly filled with his personal items.

He freaked out and called his mom, who was actually in on the joke and
told him they had just evicted her from the family home and that the
same thing was happening at all of his other properties. Then the "IRS
Agent" asked him, "Is that your phone? Yeah, we'll need to take that
too. Hand it over."

He was about to start bawling like a baby when they revealed the joke.
damnfine
2003-09-20 15:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua Zyber
Post by The log
Post by Keith Gow
I was quite pleased with both - because Timberlake was on the
verge of tears
Ah! I hate Justin Timberlake- what happened to him??
They showed up at his house pretending to be IRS agents. They told him
that his manager had swindled him out of millions of dollars and they
were confiscating his home, cars, and all of his valuable possessions,
and that he was essentially penniless. Then they made a big show out of
dropping boxes supposedly filled with his personal items.
He freaked out and called his mom, who was actually in on the joke and
told him they had just evicted her from the family home and that the
same thing was happening at all of his other properties. Then the "IRS
Agent" asked him, "Is that your phone? Yeah, we'll need to take that
too. Hand it over."
He was about to start bawling like a baby when they revealed the joke.
I wonder how much they pay these celebs to legally clear their humiliations
for public consumption...


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!" - Morbo
The log
2003-09-20 15:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua Zyber
He was about to start bawling like a baby when they revealed the joke.
What would it have taken for them to hold out just a *bit* longer??

Damn...


Peace,
The log- I know what I like

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rowandt/
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-20 17:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The log
Post by Joshua Zyber
He was about to start bawling like a baby when they revealed the joke.
What would it have taken for them to hold out just a *bit* longer??
Well, the gimmick of the show is that once you've been "Punk'd", you get
the chance to pull something similar yourself on another celebrity
friend. They had to let him save a little face so that he'd participate
in the next gag.

Timberlake set up a meeting for Kelly Osbourne with some fake MTV
executives who wanted to make her over as the next Britney Spears. You
can imagine how much bleeped-out swearing was involved in that meeting.
Keith Gow
2003-09-21 01:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by The log
(has anyone seen the Pierce Brosnan one?)
Well Pierce was on the first episode getting Punk'd by the 8-year-old
on the red carpet who basically said that Pierce was never going to be
Sean Connery. But Pierce snapped back with "What did you think of
George Lazenby?" I think that was enough to shut the kid up.

I'm not sure if they did a more elaborate set-up with Pierce as well.

-- Keith Gow --
Joshua Zyber
2003-09-21 04:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
Well Pierce was on the first episode getting Punk'd by the 8-year-old
on the red carpet who basically said that Pierce was never going to be
Sean Connery. But Pierce snapped back with "What did you think of
George Lazenby?" I think that was enough to shut the kid up.
I'm not sure if they did a more elaborate set-up with Pierce as well.
I don't think so. He's not their usual target, which are the hip
Teen-Beat stars.
The log
2003-09-21 12:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Gow
Post by The log
(has anyone seen the Pierce Brosnan one?)
Well Pierce was on the first episode getting Punk'd by the 8-year-old
on the red carpet who basically said that Pierce was never going to be
Sean Connery. But Pierce snapped back with "What did you think of
George Lazenby?" I think that was enough to shut the kid up.
As I recall the kid kept saying that xXx was better than Bond, and Brosnan said
"Who are you working for?" which was quite odd.


Peace,
The log- I know what I like

http://www.livejournal.com/users/rowandt/
Keith Gow
2003-09-22 07:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The log
Post by Keith Gow
Post by The log
(has anyone seen the Pierce Brosnan one?)
Well Pierce was on the first episode getting Punk'd by the 8-year-old
on the red carpet who basically said that Pierce was never going to be
Sean Connery. But Pierce snapped back with "What did you think of
George Lazenby?" I think that was enough to shut the kid up.
As I recall the kid kept saying that xXx was better than Bond, and Brosnan said
"Who are you working for?" which was quite odd.
Oh, yeah, it was something about XXX wasn't it... Anyway, certainly
not the highlight. Another highly amusing moment was the kid
deliberately mistaking Tori Amos for Tori Spelling. Oh how I laughed!

-- Keith Gow --

Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 03:33:33 UTC
Permalink
"tom vx" <***@vxmusic.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:***@posting.google.com...


< that IS talent. not only do you tap directly into the nexxus of evil by
acting like james, but you also manage to pinch... with a hoof! talent! :)
Darn, hadn't thought of that! OK, it was a bit of a tall tale, so what!?


< will do, and i'll try not to slip you any counterfeits.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (see how easy that was?) >


Now I see I'll never get to your level of true evilness... I can't get to
that fifth "ha"...


<< Of course,
~Henry the (now artificially happy... as if it didn't show) Horse~ >>

< that makes you sound like a robot... now, if you were a robotic evil horse
with a megalomania complex who could disguise himself like james and pinch
people's faint-y nerves with his obotic hoof- all while laughing maniacally,
of course- well, damn, that would warrant you getting your own film! :) >


OK, you can be my sidekick then...


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Keith Gow
2003-09-15 13:08:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 01:46:36 +0200, "Henry the Horse"
Post by Henry the Horse
And anyway, Year One is way better than the overrated Arkham Asylum!
There's no way that Hollywood would do justice to either.

-- Keith Gow --
Patrick MM
2003-09-16 05:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
Now that's (excuse me) a bad idea. Give Batman back to Tim Burton!
I'd love to see it, but I doubt he'd get the creative freedom he had on
Returns, after the complaints and weak reception for that film. Though, I
still think it's both the best Batman film, and the best film Burton has
ever made.
Post by Henry the Horse
And anyway, Year One is way better than the overrated Arkham Asylum!
Morrison is indeed one of the top 3 comics writers today, but Arkham is one
of his worse works -though Dave McKean is of course superb.
I agree here. Nothing much really seemed to happen in Arkham. Give me a
Lynch Invisibles anyday, or a Lynch Flex Mentallo. The disjointed time, and
shifting identity of Flex is quite a bit like typical Lynch material in
retrospect and...

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

The whole story potentially being a dying man's hallucinations is a classic
Lynch trick.

Patrick
Henry the Horse
2003-09-16 13:23:31 UTC
Permalink
"Patrick MM" <***@verizon.net> escribi� en el mensaje news:bk65u7$pgdb9$***@ID-205826.news.uni-berlin.de...


< I'd love to see it, but I doubt he'd get the creative freedom he had on
Returns, after the complaints and weak reception for that film. Though, I
still think it's both the best Batman film, and the best film Burton has
ever made. >


Very true...

I still prefer his Edward Scissorhands, but that's nitpicking.


< I agree here. Nothing much really seemed to happen in Arkham. Give me a
Lynch Invisibles anyday, or a Lynch Flex Mentallo. The disjointed time, and
shifting identity of Flex is quite a bit like typical Lynch material in
retrospect [...] >


The Invisibles! Really good Morrison! (Well, the first TPB anyway, it's the
only one I've read.)

I haven't read Flex Mentallo either, but I've heard a lot of good things
about it. Your comment makes me even more intrigued!


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Patrick MM
2003-09-17 00:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
The Invisibles! Really good Morrison! (Well, the first TPB anyway, it's the
only one I've read.)
You've got to get the other trades...now. The Invisibles is by far his best
series, the best series in comics, and one of the best pieces of fiction,
any medium. The first trade is by far the weakest, pick up Apocalipstick and
Entropy in the UK, and by the end of that, you'll be hooked. I can't stress
enough how phenomenal this series is.
Post by Henry the Horse
I haven't read Flex Mentallo either, but I've heard a lot of good things
about it. Your comment makes me even more intrigued!
Flex is really good, the only problem with it is due to a rights issue, it
is currently out of print, but ebay has the singles, and you can get a good
deal from time to time. It's not quite Invisibles, but it's also really
good.

Patrick
Post by Henry the Horse
Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Henry the Horse
2003-09-18 02:19:27 UTC
Permalink
"Patrick MM" <***@verizon.net> escribi� en el mensaje news:bk89ha$qjk0b$***@ID-205826.news.uni-berlin.de...


< You've got to get the other trades...now. The Invisibles is by far [Grant
Morrison's] best series, the best series in comics, and one of the best
pieces of fiction, any medium. The first trade is by far the weakest, pick
up Apocalipstick and Entropy in the UK, and by the end of that, you'll be
hooked. I can't stress enough how phenomenal this series is. >


You already did!, by saying that great first volume is the weakest.


< Flex is really good, the only problem with it is due to a rights issue, it
is currently out of print, but ebay has the singles, and you can get a good
deal from time to time. It's not quite Invisibles, but it's also really
good. >


I see they're available at some on-line comics shops too. Thanks again for
the tips! On newer comics, I'm a little bit lost.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
damnfine
2003-09-15 04:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darth Nub
The Joker - Brad Dourif
Close, but the Joker should of course be played by Crispin Glover.


--
/^\damnfine/^\
"All humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo!" - Morbo
Michael
2003-09-15 14:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darth Nub
I just read that Christian Bale (American Psycho, Velvet Goldmine) has
been officially announced to play Batman in the next film in the
series, shooting in January 2004. Christopher Nolan (Memento) is
directing, & from the looks of it, the film will be based on the Frank
Miller comic Batman: Year One.
As I understand it, the Year One story has been shelved for now and this
will be a more up-to-date Batman movie with Ras Al Ghul as the villain.
Henry the Horse
2003-09-15 19:18:01 UTC
Permalink
"Michael" <***@aol.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:Vnk9b.32329$***@twister.austin.rr.com...


< As I understand it, the Year One story has been shelved for now and this
will be a more up-to-date Batman movie with Ras Al Ghul as the villain. >


Bleepin' Ras Al Ghul... I hate Denny O'Neil. I really hope you're wrong,
because this is indeed bad news!


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Michael
2003-09-15 19:36:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Henry the Horse
< As I understand it, the Year One story has been shelved for now and this
will be a more up-to-date Batman movie with Ras Al Ghul as the villain. >
Bleepin' Ras Al Ghul... I hate Denny O'Neil. I really hope you're wrong,
because this is indeed bad news!
I'm no big Ras fan, but I like Denny just fine. What's your beef with him?
Henry the Horse
2003-09-16 00:54:50 UTC
Permalink
"Michael" <***@aol.com> escribi� en el mensaje news:Gwo9b.17805$***@twister.austin.rr.com...


<< Bleepin' Ras Al Ghul... I hate Denny O'Neil. I really hope you're wrong,
because this is indeed bad news! >>

< I'm no big Ras fan, but I like Denny just fine. What's your beef with
him? >


Well, I was using "hate" a bit too liberally.

As Batman editor, as far as I know he's done an excellent job.

As a writer, I just think he's mediocrity itself. Or what I know by him -

Assorted Marvel comics during the 60's. OK, this is not fair - he was
beginning, and I'm sure he was under pressure to make things the Stan Lee
way. Though Roy Thomas could say the same and did much better work.

Batman during the 70's. Come on, the only good thing about it is Neal Adams!
But yes, DC comics in general, with few exceptions, weren't much better.

Green Lantern / Green Arrow. I confess I re-read it recently and for some
reason I found it better than I remembered it. And its importance is
undeniable. Though it got really lame in the end, out of the blue turning
Speedy into a junkie and all.

The next thing I know by him was way after, his runs in Iron Man and
Daredevil, which for me are terrible. This must be around the time you
*knew* that every series he got his hands on would have a secondary
character die immediately. Nothing wrong with that per se, but the stories
were really weak and full of wooden pathos.

And then, his return to Batman. Take Legends of the Dark Knight, for
instance - An excellent series by top writers and artists. Every issue you
picked would be good - except those written by O'Neil himself, which were
always lame.

So, of course this is completely a matter of opinion, but as I said, for me
he's an excellent editor and a very mediocre writer.

But you're right and I shouldn't have said I "hate" him, that's truly an
exaggeration.


Of course,
~Henry the Horse~
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...