KarmaMod:

Lmao. I think Alciia casted as BatGirl was better than Swchernigger or whatever the hell he calls himself playing Mr Freeze


[size=4pt]I still love Clueless [/size]

Lawd-a-mercy! I forgot about "Awl beee Beck" as Mr. Freeze. What were they thinking, seriously?


[size=4pt]Me too, saw it on Bravo last week. . . back to back. [/size]

@karmamod

michael bay HAS shot some iconic movies and it is precisely because of his capability that spielberg convinced him to shoot Transformers. remember bay called it a stupid toy movie while he was working on shooting GI Joe, but spielberg saw the potential of the movie and the young directors skills and agreed to be executive producer.spileberg didnt call anyone else.

since the success of a movie is judged by ticket sales as well as dvds and merchandising, arguably Bay qualifies as one of the most successful directos in the same league as Nolan. transformers brought more money than War of the worlds and AI put togethre so yes, Bay qualifies to be up there with some of the best.

why do we bother with the comparison with naija "directors"? they don't have the education, training, resources, support and financing that the Amricans have. the socalled actors can't act a hoot to save their necks so why bother?

@siskill

yes it is the directors movie ONLY if he has the final say on how the end result turns out. there are aspects of film making that transcend his powers. we all know editing can make or break a movie, especially action movies. in most cases producers and the studio will demand the editor cut a movie in certain ways that negate the directors vision, removing good takes, and that is why sometimes we get theatrical pieces and DVDs called director' cut. at the end of the day, the directors vision may not well tally with the studios budget and in such cases many things in that vision may have to get cut out, crippling the final product. other times the directors choice of an actor may hit a stone wall with the execs who would rather hire a cheaper nondescript actor than the high grade ones. its the studio that finances the project and pays everyone so really the final choice on how the movie turns out rests with them. why do you think the likes of QT and Rob Zombie prefer to go indie? so they wont get pressured to cut cut cut and suffer the dreaded overbearing studios who all want to make a PG 13 to rake in more money.

and that is why Todd Macfarlane ditched spawn, and prefer a pseudonym to his credit. the studio wanted to cut the violence of what made spawn spawn and shoot a PG 13.

remember also that the cinematographer arrays his cameras and choses his lenses and shots based on camera work in the script, just as the actors say their lines and act along as demanded by the script. and that script is mostly greenlighted by the studios/producers. many directors walked out on the watchmen because the script stank and had the potential to ruin their reputation. even michael bay had to rewrite transformers because most of what was okayed was rubbish, with a female Autobot while the writers couldnt explain the need for gender in robots. Bay was able to get what he wants because speilbetg was exec producer (meaning he either financed most of the project, or he repesented the one who did)

there are however a breed of directors and writers who are given enough wiggle room and yet they still murk it up. those are the outrightly condemnable ones.

Lemme break it down to math. The fault and credits go (in percentage or whatever other divide) to whoever was involved in the shooting of a movie. But in general I think it's the producers and directors that should get the major blame or credits but the director gets the major blames or credits. These two sets of people are the ones calling the real shots. You talk about a screen and script writers. If he writes shit. The director can say no. You talk about the Casting people, if they cast shit, the director and producers can say no. You talk about actors, if they act shit, assuming they passed being casted, the director can say no. So basically any other person Bleep-up is the director and producers' Bleep-up for letting it slide. Not to mention their own personal ones.

since the success of a movie is judged by ticket sales as well as dvds and merchandising, arguably Bay qualifies as one of the most successful directos in the same league as Nolan.

Not in my world it doesnt. Michael Bay doesnt belong in the same line as Nolan. Nolan has made wonderful movies like Momento, The Following, etc. He was considered an accomplished director way before the "success" of the Batman movies.

Bay directing Transformers which would have been "successful" with ANY director(it['s a childhood cartoon, most people saw it mainly on nostalgia) doesnt put him in the same group as Scorcese and Nola. Sorry.

vescucci:

Lemme break it down to math. The fault and credits go (in percentage or whatever other divide) to whoever was involved in the shooting of a movie. But in general I think it's the producers and directors that should get the major blame or credits but the director gets the major blames or credits. These two sets of people are the ones calling the real shots. You talk about a screen and script writers. If he writes shit. The director can say no. You talk about the Casting people, if they cast shit, the director and producers can say no.

I agree. The writers cant be blamed. It's the director that PICKS which script to direct.

Not in my world it doesnt. Michael Bay doesnt belong in the same line as Nolan.

You prefer Memento to Transformers. That doesn't mean Memento is a better movie and therefore Michael Bay is a bad director. Everything is subjective; popularity is the only objective metric.

I agree. The writers can't be blamed. It's the director that PICKS which script to direct.

Exactly. The director is the manager. He gets most of the credit, and he gets most of the blame. QED.

Seun, most people who actually enjoy the art of film wouldnt dare compare a shallow childish movie like Transformers to Memento. It's also critically acclaimed.

All Bay basically has to his name is Transformers anyway.

All is to blame.since,a movie as a work of art is a collective effort.So also would they all share the blame for the final product.No one cares what effort was put into the production process it's the final product that matters.

@karmamod

much as you make of accomplishment in your definition, the real judges are the ones who finance the movies, and since show business is show BUSINESS it stands to reason they will finance and hire a box office success story and NOT the one who films the most artistic/inventive commercial bombs. catch my drift? Bay may not be in the same class artistic wise as your precious Nolan (i doubt that) but he has many a summer blockbuster to his credits, and that is a guarantee that producers and studio execs will fall head over heels to have him helm their next summer blockbuster. especially with the success of Transformers which however much you diss, is still a rousing good fun and made lots of money.

On the subject of Transformers, the genius of Bay is in tackling the complexity of bringing the Autobots and Decepticons to life and integrating them so well with the live actors. isnt this sort of accomplishment what made Terminator 2 so successful, or did you go for the warped story with all its Time Paradox etc? the story may subpar, but it was entertaining enough to make a hit in the BO.

truth is, most producers would rather have a blockbuster than an Oscar material. the latter don't rake in much money and mostly are pet projects (i mean the sort of movies that gun for older audience-the pianist, mamma mia, michael clayton) considering the bulk of the movie going demography is of the younger thrill-seeking variety.

in essence, shooting successful blockbusters qualify you as a formidable hollywood darling; shooting even more adds to your rep. its all about the money.

see brian singer. the dismal box office performance of superman returns overshadowed Xmen and X2, and now he is desperately praying for someone to mercifully give him a script.

back to topic. yes directors can walk away from bad scripts, but in most cases its the finished product that betrays the failings or otherwise of a movie (after editing and post production) and not the directing process. sometimes a potent-looking script will fail to connect with audience only because they either failed to see the directors vision or that vision was poorly presented. case in point: Existenz.

nonetheless, some directors have to eat too, so walking away from every dubious-looking script wont add much to the bank balances. some of them say" this is a bad script, i can make it better" but end up making things much worse.

i still maintain producers and studios share the greatest portion of the blame.

And Bay is credited with Bad Boys (1 & 2) and Armageddon, also the Rock and the Pearl Harbor.

In other words, lame forgettable movies

Between actors and directors,I'd have to go with the director. Ja, a lot depends on his or his agent's contract-bargaining prowess with studios, which are soulless money machines and don't give a shit about vision, but  a director's supposed to 'see' the characters in the movie in his head, and know who'll pull it off to perfection. If I can recognise bad acting, and I'm no movie director, surely those who strut about with that title should too. There are so many rivers to ford in making a movie,and I respect directors who have a vision and stick to it. Case in point: The English Patient.  Antony Minghella wanted Kristin Scott Thomas, 20th Centuty Fox wanted someone else. But he stuck to his guns, because he knew what he wanted. So he went to Miramax when 2oth wouldn't budge and cast Thomas.The result? One of the most affecting love stories and one of the most breathtaking movie cinematography ever. Winner of 9 oscars,including best picture. He was a director worthy of the label. Not all of them are.

Peter Jackson was practically begging,I think it was Disney studios,not sure, with The Lord of the Rings. He even swore to cut his vision short- heh-heh- and make it just two parts.They wouldn't let him breathe. So he took off to New Line Cinema,which gave him all the creative freedom he wanted and voila!The superb LOTR in all its poetryof motion and drama.

It takes a serious lack of talent to be bad at something you do for a living. Once you've good actors the problem is half solved.

i still maintain producers and studios share the greatest portion of the blame.

I think the producers and studios have more say in how it's marketed. It is in this area they can make or break a movie. Take The Assasination of Jessie James by the Coward Robert Ford, to me this movie was Poetry on reel. My God! The Cinematographer was brilliant but the studios thought it was too long, they wanted to have some parts deleted. . . the director and the star stood their ground and would not do it, thought somethings would be lost and they were also banking on the intelligence of the avarage American Movie goer to appreciate it in all its 3hrs long glor (a gross miscalculation if you ask me). So what did the studio do? They refused to promote it, i mean the movie was shown in less than 300 theaters in the US. Instead they shoved Michael Clayton down our throats, that was just all sorts of wrong.

Jesse James was a great movie

There are a great many wheels engaged in producing a movie. But he says between actors and directors.

Casey Affleck blew my mind in Jesse James. He should've have gotten that best supporting actor oscar. Javier was awesome in No Country for Old Men,in his own way, a villain as chilling and profound as Hannibal Lecter. But my vote would've gone to Affleck for his performance.

Let's stick to the topic. Once Gamine asked what a good movie was. This has proved to be a good question. You could judge this based on different criteria, art, grossings, popularity etc. But when it come down to it, these yardsticks are not mutually exclusive, so I'd say a good movie comprises of all the elements I mentioned and more. It's virtually impossible as Ex-Inferis maintained to make a movie for all generations, therefore it follows too that a film should be judged based also on the targeted audience. I remember as a kid, I thought Jumanji and Never ending story were the best films in the world and I couldn't make out what the deal was with The Godfather and Kramer vs Kramer to mention a few. I'm sure if you have teenagers as siblings, they'd hate Brokeback Mountain and probably doze while watching No Country for old men. On the level of awards. Since the Academy consists of essentially the same artists involved in film making themselves. You can't say they are wrong most of the time. Though a lot. But they are mostly right too. The way I see it, they choose films that they think is an appropriate respresentation of the Academy.

Even though we're digressing I think we've basically come to a conclusion that directors, producers and the studio at large for a bad movie. Some complained about intentional sabotage of a studio marketing its film i.e. The assasination, I think this is very unlikely. They'd only do such a thing if they believed marketing costs would exceed the returns. Otherwise it's a case of a mother murdering her own child. I like Bay some but I like Nolan better. Not to take away anything from Bay though, in restrospect Bad Boys II was crappy!

If you've been nominated for an oscar you automatically join its voters. And each person votes on who they THINK deserves the award. The winner is the nominee with the highest number of votes. I'm not an Oscar voter. But if I were, my vote would go to Ben Affleck that year, as no doubt some voters' did. It's all a matter of Industry OPINION.

I thought the same when I watched Never-Ending Story. Of course it's impossible to make a movie for all generations. We're watching and filtering it all differently. Even movies for the[i] same[/i] generation are rarely ever unanimously experienced. Is why opinions differ on the impact of a given movie. There's still stuff that entrances me, though, and never gets old, but these are rarely films. The Muppet Show, for one. Danger Mouse, for another. I haven't seen Nolan's Dark Knight, but friends who've seen it say Ledger's performance carried the movie,and that the film itself transcends the superhero genre and is seriously Oscar worthy.

Haaaa. Off the topic again. Bad dog.

vescucci:

Let's stick to the topic. Once Gamine asked what a good movie was. This has proved to be a good question. You could judge this based on different criteria, art, grossings, popularity etc. But when it come down to it, these yardsticks are not mutually exclusive, so I'D say a good movie comprises of all the elements I mentioned and more. It's virtually impossible as Ex-Inferis maintained to make a movie for all generations, therefore it follows too that a film should be judged based also on the targeted audience. I remember as a kid, I thought Jumanji and Never ending story were the best films in the world and I couldn't make out what the deal was with The Godfather and Kramer vs Kramer to mention a few. I'm sure if you have teenagers as siblings, they'D hate Brokeback Mountain and probably doze while watching No Country for old men. On the level of awards. Since the Academy consists of essentially the same artists involved in film making themselves. You can't say they are wrong most of the time. Though a lot. But they are mostly right too. The way I see it, they choose films that they think is an appropriate respresentation of the Academy.

Even though we're digressing I think we've basically come to a conclusion that directors, producers and the studio at large for a bad movie. Some complained about intentional sabotage of a studio marketing its film i.e. The assasination, I think this is very unlikely. They'D only do such a thing if they believed marketing costs would exceed the returns. Otherwise it's a case of a mother murdering her own child. I like Bay some but I like Nolan better. Not to take away anything from Bay though, in restrospect Bad Boys II was crappy!

That is PRECISELY why they did it. The studios were sure the average movie going audience won't want to sit through a 3 hr movie. Not even an action movie or something akin to the westerns of yesteryear. . . nope this was more psychological than it was physical. They had already sunk 30 mill on just production alone, of course they were not going to throw more money into it. The release date was pushed back twice because the studio and the director couldn't come to an agreement over cutting down to an acceptable time frame. It was finally released two years after they had completed filming, the director won and the studios took a washing our hands off it stance.

iice:

Ben Affleck for what?

Lol, Ben Affleck for nada. Casey Affleck for nomination. 

Hope you're good, it's been awhile.

Brolin's performance deeply moved me, it was so real and so damn near perfect. Unbelievable he wasn't nominated at all. But Oscars haven't stopped astonishing people with their awful choices and its politics dates back awhile. Cant grudge Bardem his little tin man, though. The guy was a force of nature. When stupendous acting gets lined up for one award, it's almost painful to see THE winner emerge. Like the 2005 nominations for Best Actor. So it was with this year's Best Supporting actor thingie. Definitely Casey for me.

I would still maintain that directors are to be blamed. Imagine using Eucharia Anunobi as a teenager and then as an adult with say, ghana weaving on her head and 20 years later, she still has that ghana weaving plus no good makeup artists to help her look her age after so many years.

As for the George Clooney/Brad Pitt actors i said earlier, they were examples of known actors i used to illustrate a point before some people misconstrued me.

Let me use another example, for a film like the Harry Potter films, the director is an experienced one who used three kids from when they were young and they 'grew' with the movie from series to series. They could have used some known child actors like Dakota Fanning, e.t.c.

A film like BLOOD DIAMOND was superb with the cast of Leonardo DiCaprio and that black man (Djimon something). They did justice to their roles. Even Hotel Rwanda.

Why couldn't they have used Arnold Schwarzenneger for Leonardo's part? Because they have the sense to see and know that Arnold doesn't fit the part.

You werent miscontrued madam.

Your illustration did not make sense.

it still isnt.

@ Gamine
Lol, you a hard woman oh. I like that, jare.


I think the fact that it doesn't make sense is precisely her point. Some parts call for certain types of people and it's the director's job to see that instead of casting willy nillyingly.

The Casting Director follows the orders of the Director, yes.

But i cannot imagine who in this world would cast Jude Law as Harry potter.

or George Clooney as Prince Caspian

or Dakota Fanning as Rachel Dawes

or. . . . . .

Ridiculous is just the starting point.

Ridiculous is just the starting point.

Rotflmao!!!

Gamine:

The Casting Director follows the orders of the Director, yes.

But i cannot imagine who in this world would cast Jude Law as Harry potter.

or George Clooney as Prince Caspian

or Dakota Fanning as Rachel Dawes

or. . . . . .

Ridiculous is just the starting point.

@ Gamine,

You are very ridiculous in your thinking. Why would even a ''blind'' director cast Jude Law as Harry Potter when we all know that Harry Potter is a children's movie/book. Was Jude Law ever mentioned in my illustration.

Revert back to my posts and use your eyes correctly to read what i posted.

And please, why the beef?

Trust the chics to cat fight at the slightest opportunity. I hope y'all know that it pleases the male folk to no end. So if y'all are real feminists, you'll cut it out. If you're walking the middle course you'd still cut it out. Ah. I feel better.

To say the least I have pretty much a whole lotta no idea what a certain person called *** is saying.

*** is for my protetion but I'm sure y'all catch the drift. Except *** of course. But then there's plausible deniability.

What? Dakota Fanning is not a kid actor, she IS a kid.

And, uh, please don't take this the wrong way. Humour usually consists of ironies, hence Jude Law as Harry Potter (that's why it's ridiculous)

I'm really beginning to wonder what is was you posted that's been 'misconstrued'

@ vescucci,

yeah right, like i don't know what you're saying.

Ah! Got caught I see. No point employing my plausible deniability clause since that might be 'misconstrued' as further insult to your intelligence and I do not believe you're simple. Really I do not.