We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Film forum off topic/random chat thread

13435373940

Comments

  • #2


    I read a few of the articles on the Amblin/Netflix deal discussed in the Netflix recommendations thread. One off-topic titbit that Deadline revealed is that Spielberg has continually shot down any proposed Jaws remakes/reboots, no matter how much money has been waved at him. Thanks Steven!

    556616.jpg


  • #2


    Mr Crispy wrote: »
    I read a few of the articles on the Amblin/Netflix deal discussed in the Netflix recommendations thread. One off-topic titbit that Deadline revealed is that Spielberg has continually shot down any proposed Jaws remakes/reboots, no matter how much money has been waved at him. Thanks Steven!
    That's nice and all, but it's at least two movies too late.


  • #2


    mikhail wrote: »
    That's nice and all, but it's at least two movies too late.

    What? He turned down all the sequels and had no involvement in them.


  • #2


    Mr Crispy wrote: »
    What? He turned down all the sequels and had no involvement in them.
    Oh, I see. I misunderstood the original post. It read like he was in a position to prevent further sequels whether he was directing them or not. No doubt someone will try one sooner or later, leading to the inevitable "You're Going to Need a Bigger Reboot" headlines.


  • #2


    mikhail wrote: »
    Oh, I see. I misunderstood the original post. It read like he was in a position to prevent further sequels whether he was directing them or not. No doubt someone will try one sooner or later, leading to the inevitable "You're Going to Need a Bigger Reboot" headlines.

    Ah, sorry - reading back it does look like I was implying Spielberg owned the rights.

    There has been talk of a prequel of sorts, or a Quint origin story if you like, focusing on the sinking of the Indianapolis. But surely that story could be told without the fictional Quint!


  • #2


    Mr Crispy wrote: »
    There has been talk of a prequel of sorts, or a Quint origin story if you like, focusing on the sinking of the Indianapolis. But surely that story could be told without the fictional Quint!
    Done already


    Mission of the Shark: The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis



    USS Indianapolis: Men of Courage


  • #2



    I remember seeing that on the old TV3, Stacey Keach was the captain, and Richard 'John Boy Walton' Thomas was in the crew iirc.

    Just read an article about it last weekend.

    The captain was made a bit of a scapegoat, blamed for not sending distress call and not 'zig zagging'... Even though the Japanese sub captain said it wouldn't have made any difference and eventually officers came forward to say that distress calls were sent but the officer in charge was drunk and dismissed them as Japanese false signals.
    Could have saved a lot more lives if help had been sent immediately.
    The captain killed himself at 70 after the death of his wife :(


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    Is Cage an A-Lister still? I thought that ship sailed a long time ago.

    Have to say I really enjoyed 'Color Out of Space' though. It's got little to do with the Lovecraft story, but it was entertaining in its own right. 'Mandy' was alright too, if you take it as some sort of fever dream the main character had when he was dying.

    Ok, probably not an A-List star, but I think he's an actor whose name and personality has become something of a brand of ... well. Not "quality" as such; but some reassurance that, unlike Bruce Willis, Cage is present because the script has something interesting or eccentric to recommend it.

    And speaking of Willis, here's how far he has fallen: presenting ... "Out of Death". Jesus, what a name. "Phoned in" feels 5 levels above Willis' current efforts...



  • #2


    That plot sounds as tired as Bruce.


  • #2


    ^
    I can't say that I ever counted Bruce Willis as anything to write home about no matter what he was in. His latest turns are no different to me than his other "appearances".

    As for Cage and his recent roles (by which I mean the last decade or more) I'd really wonder what interest some of the projects he joined had. I've seen things like 'Left Behind' and 'Inconceivable' and I know that if is it wasn't for the fact that he pissed all his shillings away and the IRS was knocking on his door he absolutely would not be doing trash like that.

    But unlike Willis, Cage could bring something to a role. He had a...whatever...that made him watchable. In fact even when he does his madman act, he's still watchable in a car crash way. Bruce Willis was just always a bug fat meh to me, even in something like 'Die Hard'. He's acted off the screen by Alan Rickman and, as far as I know, Rickman was just sort of taking the piss on that film. He didn't want to even do it in the first place.


  • #2


    Willy Wonka was 50 yesterday.



  • #2


    Nic Cages next role might his greatest ever,

    Himself.
    Nicolas Cage will soon star in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, a film about how weird it is to be Nicolas Cage. Remember those photos of Cage in the hot-pink leather jacket? This is what that fit was for! The Hollywood Reporter says the film will debut April 22, 2022. Cage plays a fictionalized version of himself, cash-strapped and bored with acting. He takes a $1 million appearance fee to go see a “dangerous superfan,” which somehow morphs into him becoming a CIA operative and using all his “nouveau shamanic” acting skills to save the world. The film also stars Pedro Pascal, Catastrophe’s Sharon Horgan, Neil Patrick Harris (no stranger to filmic self-mythologizing), and Tiffany Haddish. The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent is directed by Ghosted creator Tom Gormican off a script he co-wrote with Kevin Etten.

    nic-cage-jacket-1536x864-1.jpg


  • #2


    LOL

    And they that Hollywood is out of ideas. :pac:


  • #2


    Tom Cruise 59 today


  • #2


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    Tom Cruise 59 today

    That's kinda insane. You'd have to wonder at what point his body just screams at him "enough with the Buster Keaton shít!". Dunno whether that story about him going into space for a film was genuine or not, but you'd imagine time's running out all the same.

    Watched the Colour of Money the other day; great, underappreciated Scorsese film (possibly ignored as a bit of a "one for them" job), and the best Tom Cruise performances have generally been the most punchable version of the persona he gives off.


  • #2


    I said to my Mrs. the other day that I hoped I looked as good as Tom Cruise when I reach his age.

    She said, I wished you looked as good now.


  • #2


    Tony EH wrote: »
    ^
    I can't say that I ever counted Bruce Willis as anything to write home about no matter what he was in. His latest turns are no different to me than his other "appearances".

    As for Cage and his recent roles (by which I mean the last decade or more) I'd really wonder what interest some of the projects he joined had. I've seen things like 'Left Behind' and 'Inconceivable' and I know that if is it wasn't for the fact that he pissed all his shillings away and the IRS was knocking on his door he absolutely would not be doing trash like that.

    But unlike Willis, Cage could bring something to a role. He had a...whatever...that made him watchable. In fact even when he does his madman act, he's still watchable in a car crash way. Bruce Willis was just always a bug fat meh to me, even in something like 'Die Hard'. He's acted off the screen by Alan Rickman and, as far as I know, Rickman was just sort of taking the piss on that film. He didn't want to even do it in the first place.

    He repeated his performance in Quigley Down Under and Robin Hood Prince of Thieves


  • #2


    It's a tough call. As much as I'd lament the lack of practical driven FX and stunt work, I would also draw the line at being eaten by the animals :D But knowing the stunt had genuine risk (I remember it well from childhood cos it was clearly real) also added undoubted thrill too.


  • #2


    And I'm sure by take 4 the crocs would've been slightly annoyed at having been jumped on multiple times


  • #2


    He repeated his performance in Quigley Down Under and Robin Hood Prince of Thieves

    How dare you slander Rickman's Bafta winning performance in RHPOT!! It's a work of art!


  • #2


    Say what you will about the camp inanity of Moore's era of Bond, some of their stunts were pretty crazy - and there's simply no way any studio would try something like the below these days. Easier to pass the storyboards to a CGI farm full of contractors, 1 month from release. I doubt if even the FAst & Furious series has done something like ... though nobody burst my bubble and tell me that was a model mind you :D



  • #2


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Say what you will about the camp inanity of Moore's era of Bond, some of their stunts were pretty crazy - and there's simply no way any studio would try something like the below these days. Easier to pass the storyboards to a CGI farm full of contractors, 1 month from release. I doubt if even the FAst & Furious series has done something like ... though nobody burst my bubble and tell me that was a model mind you :D


    They computer modelled the angle of the bridge and the speed required, the car had a bigger engine and some other mods, they paid some random guy a few dollars to do the jump,
    Scaramangas plane/car is a model


  • #2


    Yeah a British stuntman did the jump for about $50k


  • #2


    After watching Men in Black: International last a few weeks ago I looked up the Wiki for the franchise, including that one and the original film.

    Interesting from that is the claim from its screenwriter Ed Solomon that it never turned a profit and a reference to Hollywood accounting which is a term I wasn't hugely familiar with. He didn't write any of the others. I've not seen 2 or 3. International was just rather inert and unmemorable.

    Heard that Forrest Gump is another that did not turn a profit. :confused:


  • #2


    After watching Men in Black: International last a few weeks ago I looked up the Wiki for the franchise, including that one and the original film.

    Interesting from that is the claim from its screenwriter Ed Solomon that it never turned a profit and a reference to Hollywood accounting which is a term I wasn't hugely familiar with. He didn't write any of the others. I've not seen 2 or 3. International was just rather inert and unmemorable.

    Heard that Forrest Gump is another that did not turn a profit. :confused:

    Gump made more money than his shrimp business

    https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Forrest-Gump#tab=summary


  • #2


    Shawshank Redemption director Frank Darabont settled with AMC over a dispute on profits owed from The Walking Dead after Darabont left around season 1. The director has walked away with 200 million dollars as a settlement!! Now that's a result. I wonder where the show might have gone had the film director stayed...

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/amc-darabont-walking-dead-settlement-1234983716/



  • #2


    Not bad for 10 years of court cases.



  • #2


    For sure. I didn't delve into the article TBH but I wonder does the settlement perhaps stipulate Darabont can no longer claim credit or renumeration for future Walking Dead material. For 200 million quid, I'd be fine with that. One wonders if he had a case then, had it continued.



  • #2


    Jesus, for 200 mil they could delete my name off the thing entirely. That's more money than he would have made if he'd actually stayed with the show.



Society & Culture