'Underneath'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
What are movies, then, in contrast?
From someone who doesn't really buy into that quote, a finite amount of time/event that can shed light on how characters behave in that situation/that amount of time. But, with tv you see them go through many events etc. and that sheds more light on the characters as people?
But, with tv you see them go through many events etc. and that sheds more light on the characters as people?
I don't think it's inherent, though. Someone with a good way with words can shed so much light with a drabble, and you can spend years on a character and say nothing deep or consistent.
Like I said, I don't buy into the quote, but I think that may have been where he was coming from when he said it.
I think all too many movies these days are stories about explosions. Or possibly Nicholas Cage.
Years ago, the Chris Rock show had a fake commercial for a movie called "Explosions" or "The Explosions". Chris's character is a cop obsessed with the explosions. At one point, Chris's wife says to the effect, "It's either me or the explosions." But then she gets killed by an explosion.
Just because someone's told a particular story once doesn't mean that another telling of it can't be enjoyable or worthy. I'm not sure where all the vilification comes from, unless you're being emotional like I am.
What's wrong with doing it again? Why shouldn't each story be judged on its own merits?
My issue with the Arthur remake is not so much the retelling of the story, but that Dudley Moore was so excellent in the original, I don't want to see anyone else in the role. I get that the remake has been updated, blah blah blah, and I don't have a problem with that. (I quite liked Clueless as a modern adaptation of Emma, and I have nothing but big love for 10 Things I Hate About You [pause to sniffle over Heath].)
I just love Dudley Moore too much in the title role to be cool with someone else doing it. (To be fair, I *also* thought that Gene Wilder should have reprised his role in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I'm just One Of Those People.)
My issue with the Arthur remake is that from all the trailers it looks like one of those "We bought the rights to the original so I guess I we had to give it the same title" remakes that's just dumb. (I have affection for the original, but not nearly as much as I do for Bedazzled, and I was pleasantly surprised by the remake of that. So I'm not opposed on principle, but dude, at least pretend to use the original story as something more than a marketing ploy.)
My issue with the Time Bandits remake are the ones DJ articulated.
i'm usually a purist when it comes to remakes, but i actually think Russell Brand will pull off Arthur very well.
Do people just ignore Plan 9 from Outer Space when they say movie-quality? And its ilk, I mean. I guess I remain unconvinced movies are worse than they ever were.
I think the difference is that we get big budget movies that may be worse than Plan 9, and the publicity jammed down our throats so much that they are actually successful.
I'd rather watch an Ed Wood movie than a Transformer movie. The laughs are better and I don't see the money going to waste that could have been better spent on...anything, including how many Ed Wood movies it could have purchased.
I just now realized that "Leaves of Grass" was about pot. I don't know what I thought it was about, maybe some sort of poetry?