Re: "Tom Cruise" - Hollywoods permier scientology creepozoid
Became corporate? You do realise that Hollywood has been run by corporations since at least the 20s?
When the film Oblivion was mentioned in the office recently, my first thoughts were that it was a prequel to The Hangover series. I couldn’t have been more wrong... or was I? After all, this Tom Cruise sci-fi caper has loss of memory as one of its key themes, which, booze fueled forays aside, immediately has me thinking of some …
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Well... not really. On paper perhaps.
Movie studios were run by large personalities (read: egos) from the 20's through the 50's, with actors 'discovered' then 'owned' by the studios. In the 50's, McCarthy and his commie allegations alienated Hollywood by ruining one hell of a lot of lives with false accusations. Studios' control continued until the 60's when SAG and unions became more powerful and the large production studios lost their stables of talent. I wonder which was better, studios that controlled their actors behavior, or corporate powerhouses like Disney, who create train wrecks to unleash upon the world after they're done with them.
I think the OP was referring to the bastardization of movie quality, created by committee, somewhat like a corporate boy band. You have to admit, original storylines are far in-between. Just regurgitated crap really.
> Movies really suck these days since the studios became corporate.
Digital cameras have reduced the cost for independent film makers, as digital cinema has reduced the cost of distribution... but yeah, if you want a film with a freak-off big budget, you need to go corporate. However, more can be done with less- ideally through imaginative location-scouting than CGI.
Okay, we're not all lucky enough to live near a city with a few arts cinemas, but hell, more people are able to afford a large TV and sound-system in their own homes these days. There are plenty of interesting films being made and released on DVD n BluRay- how are you with subtitles?
Yeah, it's true that Mssrs Cameron and Scott's returns to the sci-fi genre were disappointing, but we've had Moon, District 9, Primer, Dredd...
I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out which of The Muppets Eadon is: Waldorf or Statler?
Anyway, that conundrum aside, I saw Oblivion today and consider it to be an entertaining romp. My only real niggle was the number of occasions that a line of dialogue began "Jack!". That got a bit tiring after the 50th repetition.
You sound like my brother in law, he refuses to watch a film if it is over 1hr 30mins long and then tells everyone how crap a film is even when he's not been to see it.
We all think he's a pirck..... Yes deliberate spelling error
Why can't you hate on a movie just by who is in it? If a movie should be solely based upon the content and the acting, then you no longer need "stars" to be in them. The studios use big names to draw people in which also means that it will turn people away as well.
"The studios use big names to draw people in which also means that it will turn people away as well".
Do you really want the crowds to feel connected with the plot / characters, and enjoy the film even more?
Don't get Tom Cruise, Katie Price, Harriet Harman, lawyers, bankers, your petulant Mother In Law to play those who save you. They must play those you need to be saved from. And die. Of a really horrible and ironic death. You don't necessarily have to wish them harm in real life. But when they eventually do die, you automatically like the film a bit more. I was in tears ( of joy ) when Justin Bieber was shot dead in CSI ( here is an enhanced version of it, 4:21 of pure bliss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D4K8Rrm82w )
Had I realised at the time how annoying Gwyneth Paltrow is in real life, I would have enjoyed Seven even more when she is decapitated. Just a thought
I don't think the major problem is corporatisation of the industry - it is the fact that actors and directors have too much power. In fact, too often they are the same thing, or wearing one of those hats plus being the producer. This is, in my experience, almost always a bad start. A good movie is a team effort, and one person having more than one important role is usually a sign that the team is diluted. Another problem is that, somewhere along the line, film-makers forgot that we need to have some empathy with the characters if the movie is to work and have any lasting impression. No excellent movie has an entire cast of characters you don't actually give a flying toss about. Look at "Pulp Fiction", for instance, when all of the characters are actually really nasty pieces of work, but there is something to engage with, and compare it with, say, "Mission Impossible III".
Of my recent sci-fi viewing, "Moon" was quite good with some reasonable ideas, good acting, and a clear vision from the director; "Dredd" was fair, with excellent camera-work but too lacking in scope and characterisation; "Prometheus" is okay, but doesn't go far enough, and doesn't have a single character to empathise with (compare that with the real "Alien" franchise); and "Robot and Frank", which nearly got it right, though I had more empathy with the robot than any of the humans.
The movie greatly reminds about "Moon" w/ significantly larger budget... and chicks, erm female characters. And tons of bright scenes, easy on the eyes. It's not a bad movie, especially if you are a sci-fi fan, though. There are some clues about how the story is to unfold and for picking on them I was labeled 'geek' by my girlfriend.
Perhaps the greatest downside would be pretty straightforward storyline.
I've only seen the trailer, and couldn't see how it is different from "The Matrix" - strange things happen, people in life-support pods, and a black man wearing shades in a dark room promising to reveal the truth.
I'll probably go to see it, but only to tide me over until Iron Man 3, and then Star Trek.
>"I can't believe anyone would ever say 'Shit we SO need to get Tom Cruise for this role."
Yeah - why would any Hollywood studio execs want the star of the $2-billion-plus mega-series Mission Impossible in their film? Plus other massive money makers like Top Gun, Rain Man, Last Samurai, Jerry Maguire, A Few Good Men, etc etc etc. Love him or hate him, Cruise has been a top money maker for the big studios for 3 decades now.
Besides, you are way behind the times with this line of attack. Your other Anon buddies are all busy ineffectively DDoS'ing Israeli websites, when they aren't ratting each other out to prosecutors and headed off to prison. Didn't you get the memo?
Uh....Andy? I ... I need to tell you something.
The Anons here have NOTHINGTODOWITHANONYMOUSWHATSOEVER!
There, I said it.
I feel better now.
Now, why would "Moon" have been a worse movie with Dual Cruise in the lead role? Discuss. I imagine he could have played GERTY with no ill effect.
When I saw the previews I was like "Ooooo, looks cool", then I saw Freeman and thought "I want to see this movie".
Then I saw Cruise.
Oh well, there will be some other CGI extravaganza hitting the theaters this summer that will get some of my money.
I call BS on this. All the previews featured Cruise far more prominently than Freeman. The idea that you were all stoked for a Freeman movie and THEN put off by the revelation that Cruise was involved is plainly a load of horse crap. You just want to feel good joining in the Cruise hate.
Which is a shame because you're gonna miss a good movie as a result of your shallow and transparent posturing.
I was just thinking about sci-fi films that have used a real, solid location instead of CGI sets... interior locations that spring to mind (and please contribute):
Aliens- an old power station
Silent Running - an aircraft carrier
The Abyss - an unused cooling pond at a nuclear power station
"Stalker" was also shot inside the abandoned power station.
And as the story goes (too lazy to look for the citations), first version of "Stalker" was simply lost upon completion. So they had to shoot it again, with a few remaining scraps of the budget, and quite differently.
> first version of "Stalker" was simply lost upon completion
Correct, the proletariat-owned development studio fucked up.
After that it was shot next to the proletariat-abandoned hydropowerstation and a few proletariat-run semi-abandoned factories which were dumping all that foamy crap and snow shit into the estonian water system. Good in the movie but it gave the crew and the dog uncurable cancer a bit later.
This is perhaps more On Topic than you realise. :)
I think you might not be aware that to film the "house in the clouds", Kosinsky took a 3 camera rig to the top of a mountain and filmed "plates" of skyscapes. These were then rear projected onto screens built around a practical set of the Harper Sky House.
This is what was responsible for the highly natural feel of that location in the movie. The set and the actors were "lit" primarily by those projected sky-scapes, and the reflections on all that glass were real (albeit at one remove from the original sky that was filmed and then projected).
I think you'd be surprised how many people jump straight in to making comments without reading the articles. Especially for a movie review where many people form their opinions based on biases about the actors or film makers involved. Not that that happened in these comments though, right ? ;)
Having said that [reply], you got me. I read the review, went away, read some more reviews, then came back and read the comments. For some reason I thought the "behind the scenes" insight was part of a different review. Not this one. My mistake. :)
The FAIL is all mine. :)
So has anyone read Greg Bear's "Hull Zero-Three". Nothing one hasn't seen elsewhere , but damn fine read in the grimdark interstellar genre anyway.
Oh it's Saturday, time to drive down to the recycling center with tons of karmic accumulation. Work, here I come.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020