|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Oct 20, 2017 0:39:59 GMT -5
I find it amazing that anyone could make a film that bad out of one of Nesbo's books. This director made a great 2-hour adaptation of "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" a book which is seemingly not nearly as easy to adapt as anything Nesbo wrote. Now I kind of want to see it, just to experience how it all went so wrong. That's also what I find so weird. The two previous Alfredson movies are masterful adaptations. The guy knows how to adapt. What went wrong here ? My "studio tampering" sense is tingling. I've read "The Snowman". I'm reasonably certain I could write a tight 2-hr script from that. It is just a crime thriller. There's nothing particularly tricky about it, seemingly. The plot is literally "Murder makes detective think it is linked to unsolved serial killing from the past. Hires new detective to help. Clues make him think newly hired detective might be the killer. Can he figure it out in time?" I mean, what is hard about that? With something like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" the adaptation had to be tough because the structure of that novel is much more complex. There's quite a few important characters. The story needs to develop all the characters because the point is to determine which one's a spy. The story has to be twisty enough to fool the main character for a time, but still understandable to the audience. I am still amazed that he made a coherent 2-hour film out of that. I have major respect for the director and those screenwriters. "The Snowman" is just "catch a serial killer". Other Scandinavian crime thrillers have been successfully adapted..... I'm just baffled at this. Just googled to see if Alfredson had any interviews about it. Found this: www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-snowman-director-tomas-alfredson-michael-fassbender-reviews-trailer-a8004341.html"Addressing the criticism, Alfredson - whose credits include Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Swedish horror Let the Right One In - revealed that there were big gaps left in the story because he never got to shoot everything he had envisioned. “Our shoot time in Norway was way too short. We didn’t get the whole story with us and when we started cutting we discovered that a lot was missing,” the filmmaker told NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation)." LOL, what? |
|
dwarfoscar
TI Forumite
it's complicated
Posts: 503 
|
Post by dwarfoscar on Oct 20, 2017 2:14:31 GMT -5
That's also what I find so weird. The two previous Alfredson movies are masterful adaptations. The guy knows how to adapt. What went wrong here ? My "studio tampering" sense is tingling. I've read "The Snowman". I'm reasonably certain I could write a tight 2-hr script from that. It is just a crime thriller. There's nothing particularly tricky about it, seemingly. The plot is literally "Murder makes detective think it is linked to unsolved serial killing from the past. Hires new detective to help. Clues make him think newly hired detective might be the killer. Can he figure it out in time?" I mean, what is hard about that? With something like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" the adaptation had to be tough because the structure of that novel is much more complex. There's quite a few important characters. The story needs to develop all the characters because the point is to determine which one's a spy. The story has to be twisty enough to fool the main character for a time, but still understandable to the audience. I am still amazed that he made a coherent 2-hour film out of that. I have major respect for the director and those screenwriters. "The Snowman" is just "catch a serial killer". Other Scandinavian crime thrillers have been successfully adapted..... I'm just baffled at this. Just googled to see if Alfredson had any interviews about it. Found this: www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-snowman-director-tomas-alfredson-michael-fassbender-reviews-trailer-a8004341.html"Addressing the criticism, Alfredson - whose credits include Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Swedish horror Let the Right One In - revealed that there were big gaps left in the story because he never got to shoot everything he had envisioned. “Our shoot time in Norway was way too short. We didn’t get the whole story with us and when we started cutting we discovered that a lot was missing,” the filmmaker told NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation)." LOL, what? So they noticed that during the editing and not during the shooting... Lol what indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Oct 31, 2017 22:08:55 GMT -5
So Nosferatu is definitely at least kinda anti-semitic, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by William T. Goat, Esq. on Nov 5, 2017 18:05:10 GMT -5
Yesterday I noticed that my local Redbox was offering Guardians, that Russian superhero movie with a werebear in it.
Hmmm. Redbox...
|
|
Crash Test Dumbass
AV Clubber
ffc what now
Posts: 7,058
Gender (additional): mostly snacks
|
Post by Crash Test Dumbass on Nov 6, 2017 9:27:22 GMT -5
Somewhere in the world, at any given moment, The Shawshank Redemption is playing on TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 6, 2017 16:22:16 GMT -5
I know I'm supposed to be against the idea of further media consolidation, and I am in general, but at the same time I also really want to see a competently made Fantastic Four movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganews on Nov 21, 2017 12:57:30 GMT -5
So how is the new Pixar Day of the Dead movie not just a carbon copy of "The Book of Life"?
|
|
LazBro
Prolific Poster 
Posts: 10,280
|
Post by LazBro on Nov 21, 2017 13:11:35 GMT -5
So how is the new Pixar Day of the Dead movie not just a carbon copy of "The Book of Life"? Are Mexicans tired of Dia De Los Muertos being virtually the only (positive) cultural touchstone people have for the whole country? ETA: Okay that and lucha libre. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 21, 2017 17:19:56 GMT -5
So how is the new Pixar Day of the Dead movie not just a carbon copy of "The Book of Life"? Are Mexicans tired of Dia De Los Muertos being virtually the only (positive) cultural touchstone people have for the whole country? ETA: Okay that and lucha libre. So are we pretending that Ricardo Montalban doesn't exist now? |
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Nov 21, 2017 20:35:17 GMT -5
Are Mexicans tired of Dia De Los Muertos being virtually the only (positive) cultural touchstone people have for the whole country? ETA: Okay that and lucha libre. So are we pretending that Ricardo Montalban doesn't exist now? He doesn't exist now. He's been gone for nearly a decade. |
|
|
|
Post by chalkdevil 😈 on Nov 22, 2017 15:06:51 GMT -5
So, that Wonder movie was the number 2 movie in the US last week and I was totally unaware of it's existence until I saw the box office numbers. Turns out it's based on a book, of whose existence I was aware of, but only because it's been staring at me from bookshelves for years. Now, having only seen the cover of the book, I had assumed it was based on the early days of Alex from A Clockwork Orange. This, I've recently learned, is not the case. Anyway, I blame the decline of TOC for my lack of awareness on this subject.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Nov 22, 2017 22:30:36 GMT -5
Anyway, I blame the decline of TOC for my lack of awareness on this subject. I still manage to keep up with films to some extent. Lack of time is the big challenge there—it’s more my outside circumstances changed than anything else—plus I think 2017 was just not a great year for film in general. The stuff that does fall through is the stuff that’s not big enough to be ubiquitous but not highbrow enough to come to my attention through other means. TV, on the other hand, I’ve almost completely lost touch with (only found out about The Good Place from shoutbox, the new season of Lady Dynamite from my mother, of all people). |
|
dwarfoscar
TI Forumite
it's complicated
Posts: 503
|
Post by dwarfoscar on Nov 26, 2017 6:24:50 GMT -5
Where do you people stand on the debate whether the Lion King remake should be considered live-action or animated ?
I'm in the 'animated' camp and I'm too lazy to create a poll...
|
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Nov 26, 2017 16:08:34 GMT -5
Where do you people stand on the debate whether the Lion King remake should be considered live-action or animated ? I'm in the 'animated' camp and I'm too lazy to create a poll... I haven't looked up anything about this movie. All I've seen are casting announcements for a "live-action Lion King". This sounds absurd, so I'm just assuming it's actually animated. Just googled for it. The cast have been announced as "voices" for the characters. So, obviously it is animated. Is someone not counting motion capture/CGI as "animated" now? |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 26, 2017 17:14:09 GMT -5
Where do you people stand on the debate whether the Lion King remake should be considered live-action or animated ? I'm in the 'animated' camp and I'm too lazy to create a poll... I haven't looked up anything about this movie. All I've seen are casting announcements for a "live-action Lion King". This sounds absurd, so I'm just assuming it's actually animated. Just googled for it. The cast have been announced as "voices" for the characters. So, obviously it is animated. Is someone not counting motion capture/CGI as "animated" now? The line between the two is really, really blurry right now. Most blockbusters are largely animated now, technically, but because the stuff that used to be done with practical effects is now done with (computer) animation, but intended to look like live action. Jungle Book was mostly animated, too, but did have at last one human actor (I haven't seen it, admittedly). The main difference (pertaining to the live action.animated divide) between it and Lion King is removing that live actor. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Nov 26, 2017 17:30:28 GMT -5
I haven't looked up anything about this movie. All I've seen are casting announcements for a "live-action Lion King". This sounds absurd, so I'm just assuming it's actually animated. Just googled for it. The cast have been announced as "voices" for the characters. So, obviously it is animated. Is someone not counting motion capture/CGI as "animated" now? The line between the two is really, really blurry right now. Most blockbusters are largely animated now, technically, but because the stuff that used to be done with practical effects is now done with (computer) animation, but intended to look like live action. Jungle Book was mostly animated, too, but did have at last one human actor (I haven't seen it, admittedly). The main difference (pertaining to the live action.animated divide) between it and Lion King is removing that live actor. If there is not even one human actor in the movie, then it is animated. It could only be "live action" if they had somehow actually trained real lions and assorted other animals to dance and act. Aka, things not created by a computer. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Nov 26, 2017 17:45:32 GMT -5
The line between the two is really, really blurry right now. Most blockbusters are largely animated now, technically, but because the stuff that used to be done with practical effects is now done with (computer) animation, but intended to look like live action. Jungle Book was mostly animated, too, but did have at last one human actor (I haven't seen it, admittedly). The main difference (pertaining to the live action.animated divide) between it and Lion King is removing that live actor. If there is not even one human actor in the movie, then it is animated. It could only be "live action" if they had somehow actually trained real lions and assorted other animals to dance and act. Aka, things not created by a computer. There could be some live footage, depending on how they shoot it. I think it matter less if there's a human than if there's any live footage. There might well not be any, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's 100% cgi. |
|
|
|
Post by Nudeviking on Nov 26, 2017 23:31:45 GMT -5
The line between the two is really, really blurry right now. Most blockbusters are largely animated now, technically, but because the stuff that used to be done with practical effects is now done with (computer) animation, but intended to look like live action. Jungle Book was mostly animated, too, but did have at last one human actor (I haven't seen it, admittedly). The main difference (pertaining to the live action.animated divide) between it and Lion King is removing that live actor. If there is not even one human actor in the movie, then it is animated. It could only be "live action" if they had somehow actually trained real lions and assorted other animals to dance and act. Aka, things not created by a computer. Mr. Ed was live action. Maybe they'll do whatever they did to get Mr. Ed to talk to lions and meerkats and baboons. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Nov 27, 2017 0:19:18 GMT -5
If there is not even one human actor in the movie, then it is animated. It could only be "live action" if they had somehow actually trained real lions and assorted other animals to dance and act. Aka, things not created by a computer. Mr. Ed was live action. Maybe they'll do whatever they did to get Mr. Ed to talk to lions and meerkats and baboons. Put peanut butter in their mouths? In reality I think they used some kind of string? Definitely don't want to be the guy trying to pull on a lion's lips with string. But hey, if they do this, then yes, it is live-action. |
|
|
|
Post by chalkdevil 😈 on Nov 27, 2017 11:55:08 GMT -5
Where do you people stand on the debate whether the Lion King remake should be considered live-action or animated ? I'm in the 'animated' camp and I'm too lazy to create a poll... It's just computer animated. I don't care if they spice in 3 minutes of Planet Earth b-roll as establishing shots, I can't imagine there will be any other non-digital bits. |
|
|
|
Post by chalkdevil 😈 on Nov 27, 2017 12:04:06 GMT -5
Anyway, I blame the decline of TOC for my lack of awareness on this subject. I still manage to keep up with films to some extent. Lack of time is the big challenge there—it’s more my outside circumstances changed than anything else—plus I think 2017 was just not a great year for film in general. The stuff that does fall through is the stuff that’s not big enough to be ubiquitous but not highbrow enough to come to my attention through other means. TV, on the other hand, I’ve almost completely lost touch with (only found out about The Good Place from shoutbox, the new season of Lady Dynamite from my mother, of all people). I think I just miss the review box on TOC. I could always scroll down, see what came out and find a review. I found a lot of interesting movies that way and was at least some what aware of the middle of the road crap. I think it's just a problem of me not having a pop culture website I go to with any regularity these days. Also, seconded the TIF appreciation for finding out about The Good Place, a show I knew about but didn't know was awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Dec 4, 2017 17:56:30 GMT -5
Watching Kong: Skull Island, and Toby Kebbell's accent is just super-distracting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Dec 4, 2017 23:23:17 GMT -5
I, too, greatly miss the Review box. It was indeed a great way to spot a movie I'd never heard of. I always tried to read A-grade reviews as well as ones that were D or lower.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2017 14:16:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Locust of the Apocalypse on Dec 14, 2017 8:13:21 GMT -5
Disney now owns pretty much every movie, TV show and comic book property you loved as a child.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Dec 14, 2017 9:21:51 GMT -5
Disney now owns pretty much every movie, TV show and comic book property you loved as a child. Except the ones Warner owns. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Dec 17, 2017 18:56:01 GMT -5
The trailer for "Ready Player One" induces a visceral feeling of disgust in me. I haven't read this book, but the story displayed in the trailer is revolting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 22:54:49 GMT -5
The trailer for "Ready Player One" induces a visceral feeling of disgust in me. I haven't read this book, but the story displayed in the trailer is revolting. The actual plot seems interesting. A game played in a VR wonderland with one teen trying to beat out corporations for the prize. Yet it is so buried underneath reference after reference, I was openly saying how shit it was to my fiance. Good trailers on the other hand. A wrinkle of time looks really interesting, the ridiculous looking oprah actually works in context. Isle of Dogs also looks AMAZING, I am so pumped for another Wes Anderson stop motion film. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Dec 17, 2017 23:08:58 GMT -5
The trailer for "Ready Player One" induces a visceral feeling of disgust in me. I haven't read this book, but the story displayed in the trailer is revolting. The actual plot seems interesting. A game played in a VR wonderland with one teen trying to beat out corporations for the prize. Yet it is so buried underneath reference after reference, I was openly saying how shit it was to my fiance. It is the idea that everyone is so desperate to save a VR fantasy and apparently don't give a shit about fixing the real world that is so revolting. Edited to add: Both times I saw it, I couldn't shake the feeling that this scenario is how the society of The Matrix was formed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 23:30:47 GMT -5
The actual plot seems interesting. A game played in a VR wonderland with one teen trying to beat out corporations for the prize. Yet it is so buried underneath reference after reference, I was openly saying how shit it was to my fiance. It is the idea that everyone is so desperate to save a VR fantasy and apparently don't give a shit about fixing the real world that is so revolting. Edited to add: Both times I saw it, I couldn't shake the feeling that this scenario is how the society of The Matrix was formed. Oh, Im just purely talking about the game for the vr wonderland, kinda like a tron in that sense. I couldn't care less about the dystopian stuff. It is sad that this likely will end up as one of speilbergs last films. |
|
