News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Rate the latest movie you've seen.

Started by GalacticBusDriver, February 16, 2013, 12:37:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 23, 2019, 07:18:13 PM
Did you go all the way down on Dante?

"With Dante" not "On Dante".  i am not his girlfriend, Beatrice.

There are Four Levels ... Il Inferno, Il Purgatorio, Il Paradiso ... and lower than Hell, Il Pazzo (The Crazy)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

#4832
Fairly old news, but it wasn't public until recently:

After Disney bought Star Wars, George Lucas had 3 story outlines for the potential next movie.  Disney bought the outlines, but weren't contractually bound to use any of them.  And sure enough, they didn't.  Instead, they made The Force Awakens, which was pretty much A New Hope with new characters.  Not exactly groundbreaking, but it wasn't a stinker either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udaKOdDdcD8

I actually completely disagree with almost everything said in the video.

I get that George was upset that he was basically appeased and then ignored as a creative.  That's kinda messed up.  But at the same time, Disney didn't make any guarantees for a reason.  If they were dead set on George writing the thing, they would have committed.  George should've read the writing on the wall and not taken getting snubbed so personally.

And the elephant in the room is this: who should control this thing creatively?  Imho, George Lucas had his run, and it was a great run.  Those 2 and a half movies were excellent.  But obviously, the series fell into kind of a funk for a few years decades, at least in cinema.  It was definitely time to give someone else the reins.

Obviously, I'm not super thrilled at what Disney has done with it, but I don't agree at all with this idea that Lucas should be in control in perpetuity.  That's not how things work, and I'm thankful that's not how things work, otherwise we'd be seeing the cinematic equivalent of the Holiday Special meets Freddy Got Fingered meets Howard the Duck right now.  Disney has a lot of flaws, but Greedo shooting first isn't one of them.

I thank George for his work and hope that someone else can breathe fresh new life into his creation.  Star Wars is the sort of franchise that lasts from generation to generation and by necessity must pass on from master to apprentice.  The best thing to do is to take a step back and let it happen.

Blackleaf

Disney bought Lucas Flims for $4.05 billion. If Lucas thought he still had creative control over Star Wars, he was a fool. Part of me is curious to know what George Lucas' sequels would have looked like, but I'm 95% sure the rabid fanbase would have hated it just as much, if not more.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Baruch

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 25, 2019, 06:08:08 PM
Disney bought Lucas Flims for $4.05 billion. If Lucas thought he still had creative control over Star Wars, he was a fool. Part of me is curious to know what George Lucas' sequels would have looked like, but I'm 95% sure the rabid fanbase would have hated it just as much, if not more.

He needed to follow the original plan, while the Spice still flowed.  3 movies, 3 prequels, 3 postludes.  So basically one movie ever 2 years, starting in 1977.  He should have been done in 1993.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 25, 2019, 06:08:08 PM
Disney bought Lucas Flims for $4.05 billion. If Lucas thought he still had creative control over Star Wars, he was a fool. Part of me is curious to know what George Lucas' sequels would have looked like, but I'm 95% sure the rabid fanbase would have hated it just as much, if not more.
He thought he'd have more input, which I can kinda sympathize with and also don't sympathize with at all.

Some of his fans think he should retain creative control even after selling the IP, which I completely disagree with.  "But he created my childhood".  Yeah, and so what?  You can't sell your house and then crash there to reminisce about the old days or shittalk the new owners' lousy barbecues.  It's done, move on with your life.

trdsf

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 25, 2019, 09:26:40 PM
Some of his fans think he should retain creative control even after selling the IP, which I completely disagree with.  "But he created my childhood".  Yeah, and so what?  You can't sell your house and then crash there to reminisce about the old days or shittalk the new owners' lousy barbecues.  It's done, move on with your life.
Generally speaking, I'm a big fan of the original creator maintaining creative control.  This has nothing to do with the fans, but the process of creation itself.  I genuinely can't imagine selling off my creations lock, stock and barrel for any amount of money.  I've lived with them in my head too long to trust anyone else with them.  It'd be like selling my cat to a owners that can only promise they'll try not to kill her.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Gawdzilla Sama

Obsessing with anything is a bad idea. Sadly, it creeps up on people who aren't paying attention.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Hydra009

Quote from: trdsf on September 26, 2019, 02:58:15 AMI genuinely can't imagine selling off my creations lock, stock and barrel for any amount of money.
Me too.  But a for some people, they earn a living doing just that.  It must be great coming up with ideas that people like so much that they're willing to shell out serious cash for them.  The only downside is that now they're no longer fully your ideas and you're no longer in complete control of how they're used - they could get shelved forever or modified heavily and you either have to be okay with that or seek another arrangement.

drunkenshoe

#4839
Moneyball.

I loved it. It's not a baseball game movie like they promise though. It is pretty bigger than sports. 
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

SGOS

#4840
Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 26, 2019, 02:26:15 PM
Moneyball.

I loved it. It's not a baseball game like they promise though. It is pretty bigger than sports. 
Ordinarily, I don't find baseball very interesting.  But I love this movie.  I bought it for my private collection, and I've lost track of the times I watched it.  It's not a baseball movie.  It's a movie about managing baseball.  Now that should seem even duller than watching a pitcher scratch his ass and adjust his cap for 45 minutes out of each game, but it's engaging on so many levels.  The relationship between the manager and his geek assistant is utterly satisfying because all the jocks I've known had no respect for anyone like that in high school.

My favorite line is when they are recruiting that washed up catcher with the bum arm who says, "But I can't play first base," and the Manager says, "Oh, it's easy.  We'll teach you," as he turns to his recruiter and says, "Tell him, Frank," to which Frank shakes his head and responds, "It's not easy.  It's INCREDIBLY hard to play first Base."

I also think it was the most convincing role Brad Pitt has played in years.  Not many people have talked about this film.  Now you've got me all jacked up.  I'm going to watch that movie again right now.  Gotta go.  Bye.

Edit:  Yep, I enjoyed it one more time.

drunkenshoe

#4841
Quote from: SGOS on September 26, 2019, 08:54:20 PM
Ordinarily, I don't find baseball very interesting.  But I love this movie.  I bought it for my private collection, and I've lost track of the times I watched it.  It's not a baseball movie.  It's a movie about managing baseball.  Now that should seem even duller than watching a pitcher scratch his ass and adjust his cap for 45 minutes out of each game, but it's engaging on so many levels.  The relationship between the manager and his geek assistant is utterly satisfying because all the jocks I've known had no respect for anyone like that in high school.

My favorite line is when they are recruiting that washed up catcher with the bum arm who says, "But I can't play first base," and the Manager says, "Oh, it's easy.  We'll teach you," as he turns to his recruiter and says, "Tell him, Frank," to which Frank shakes his head and responds, "It's not easy.  It's INCREDIBLY hard to play first Base."

I also think it was the most convincing role Brad Pitt has played in years.  Not many people have talked about this film.  Now you've got me all jacked up.  I'm going to watch that movie again right now.  Gotta go.  Bye.

Edit:  Yep, I enjoyed it one more time.

I wanted to say that but forgot to type the word movie, lol. Edited.

It's a very underrated movie. I just didn't love the movie, I found the situation very philosophical and universal as in problem solving from the simplest level to the universal. Math-Philosophy-attempt for a paradigm shift in a field. While watching I realised that even this wasn't a true story but something written, they could only construct a story like this via baseball, not with any other team sport, but then I don't know anything about baseball and I don't need to get it in the movie.

I should learn about baseball though. The movie inspired me. 

[spoiler]I loved a lot of things in lines and about Brand and Beane. But my fave part is the fact that he attempts to build a team to win and realises it is also an attempt to change the game and although he succeeds in a way, he refuses to go to a better team with millions and keeps trying to win the last game of the season. It's so good. And a true story. [/spoiler]

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

SGOS

Quote from: drunkenshoe on September 27, 2019, 03:35:27 AM
they could only construct a story like this via baseball, not with any other team sport, but then I don't know anything about baseball and I don't need to get it in the movie.
Baseball makes a good background for the plot, especially since fans make such a big deal about statistics, probably more than other sports.  What's odd is that this paradigm shift hadn't happened earlier, because the stats have always been there.  I think it's partly because computers have become the "now."  The movie, being from Hollywood, no doubt tends to de-emphasize some things and emphasize others to make the plot more dramatic.  Stats have always had a place in recruiting.  How could they not?  And I'm sure there is still a lot of useless jabber in round table discussion that use ambiguous phrases like, "The boy's got heart," or "Yeah, but he's got a good swing."

Like, Pitt who needed a role like this, Jonah Hill did a stellar job, and needs to put this film in the file he takes to interviews.  I never paid much attention to Jonah Hill before, but his true versatility really shows up in Moneyball.

Baruch

You mean, like Robert Redford in The Natural?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: SGOS on September 27, 2019, 08:19:14 AM
Baseball makes a good background for the plot, especially since fans make such a big deal about statistics, probably more than other sports.  What's odd is that this paradigm shift hadn't happened earlier, because the stats have always been there.  I think it's partly because computers have become the "now."  The movie, being from Hollywood, no doubt tends to de-emphasize some things and emphasize others to make the plot more dramatic.  Stats have always had a place in recruiting.  How could they not?  And I'm sure there is still a lot of useless jabber in round table discussion that use ambiguous phrases like, "The boy's got heart," or "Yeah, but he's got a good swing."

Like, Pitt who needed a role like this, Jonah Hill did a stellar job, and needs to put this film in the file he takes to interviews.  I never paid much attention to Jonah Hill before, but his true versatility really shows up in Moneyball.
Hard to find a bigger baseball fan than I am--followed it from '58 on.  And I love stats--that's what drew me to the sport in the first place.  Anyway, as odd as it seems, I have not read the book nor seen the movie.  Why?  Did not feel the need since I already knew what Beane was doing prior to the book or movie.  So, it seemed it would be 'old hat'.  But now, because of your and Shoe's take on it, I will have to see it.

Why is the baseball establishment so slow in accepting these 'new' stats?  If nothing else, baseball is tradition.  It is mom, apple pie and the flag.  Baseball is riddled with scores of 'unwritten' rules and customs--just like our society.  As an example the stat batting average(BA) was one of the first to be used and that was in the late 1800's.  It was the gold standard.  That was so until Branch Rickey developed some different ones in the in the '40's.  But BA was still golden.  The new type of stat, called 'sabermetrics' was introduced in the early 70's by Bill James.  These measurements were slow to catch on, but their intent was to determine what stats really reflected on winning games.  It attempted to answer questions about what the components of a win are and which are more important.  Bill James now works for the Boston Red Sox and his 'sabermatrics' has taken over; Billy Beane was on of the first to use these new (and constantly improving) stats to drive his assessment of 'true' baseball skills.  And it worked and now just about every team uses those type of stats.  The BA is no longer golden--it really does not have much of a bearing on winning.  Yet there are managers and players who still think it matters--it is tradition.  There is still a hue and cry about the breaking down of tradition.  The trouble is, that stats connect us with the old, old version of the game--it gives the illusion that the game is the same as it was back in the early 1900's.  Tradition is the reason baseball is slow to change.  And Beane was the first to really and openly use the new brand of stat.  And it is still working for him.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?