|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 9, 2020 19:55:44 GMT
But who cares when you yourself concede Fincher can make a phone book interesting? There are other directors who can make Batman fighting Superman banal. It's all relative to their talent. Yeah but in the downsized and limited universe of corporate film, it means less artistic variety. Just because Fincher can spend $$ to make a phone book movie interesting, does not mean it is the best use of the medium. They spend $$ promoting it when dozens of films could be made at the same time. It's cultural illiteracy, just because it doesn't have a superhero doesn't mean it is not a dumbing down of culture.
It's just the type of cynical project you can imagine a disinterested studio executive would greenlight.
"Hey, how about a movie on John Huston writing the Maltese Falcon?"
"Who's the bad guy?"
"Jack Warner."
"Uh no no-we don't like that. Can you come up with a project where the bad guy is someone who might remind people of Trump?"
eh go home please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 9, 2020 19:56:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 9, 2020 20:00:08 GMT
How's this for a compromise.
The talking tank could have an Orson Welles voice!
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 9, 2020 20:16:49 GMT
This is a REALLY niche market film idea though. In the 80s it would have been done as a tv movie like the Scarlett O'Hara War was, and that was more mainstream than this idea. Is the screenplay battle over Citizen Kane really cinematic? lol
I was hoping this was about a man who gets turned into a tank.
There was a TV movie biopic about the making of CK, with Liev Schrieber as Orson Welles, but this is supposed to be from Mankiewicz’s point of view. The big question mark to me is whether or not this will just repeat the controversial talking points that Pauline Kael made decades ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 9, 2020 20:29:10 GMT
There was a TV movie biopic about the making of CK, with Liev Schrieber as Orson Welles, but this is supposed to be from Mankiewicz’s point of view. The big question mark to me is whether or not this will just repeat the controversial talking points that Pauline Kael made decades ago. You intrigue me. What are the controversial talking points she mentioned?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 9, 2020 20:30:39 GMT
There was a TV movie biopic about the making of CK, with Liev Schrieber as Orson Welles, but this is supposed to be from Mankiewicz’s point of view. The big question mark to me is whether or not this will just repeat the controversial talking points that Pauline Kael made decades ago. You intrigue me. What are the controversial talking points she mentioned?
You never heard of her essay, Raising Kane?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 9, 2020 20:36:45 GMT
You never heard of her essay, Raising Kane? I might have but film critic essays are low on my radar screen. I read a couple of her reviews available online but mostly know her from Ebert bringing her up. She wrote an essay explaining why US movies got dumb in the late 70s but I don't agree with her conclusions. She was right that movie studios inherit audiences, but she had a ridiculous theory that oil men types were dictating movie production choices. The studios wanted to chase after the B movie crowd because they were losing them to independent companies. Had nothing to do with T Boone Pickens type guys telling them what to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 9, 2020 21:31:12 GMT
You intrigue me. What are the controversial talking points she mentioned?
You never heard of her essay, Raising Kane? I am guessing it'll be a Rashomon style story.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 9, 2020 21:52:20 GMT
But who cares when you yourself concede Fincher can make a phone book interesting? There are other directors who can make Batman fighting Superman banal. It's all relative to their talent. Yeah but in the downsized and limited universe of corporate film, it means less artistic variety. Just because Fincher can spend $$ to make a phone book movie interesting, does not mean it is the best use of the medium. They spend $$ promoting it when dozens of films could be made at the same time. It's cultural illiteracy, just because it doesn't have a superhero doesn't mean it is not a dumbing down of culture.
It's just the type of cynical project you can imagine a disinterested studio executive would greenlight.
"Hey, how about a movie on John Huston writing the Maltese Falcon?"
"Who's the bad guy?"
"Jack Warner."
"Uh no no-we don't like that. Can you come up with a project where the bad guy is someone who might remind people of Trump?"
You're suggesting they're trying to invoke Donald Trump with Orson Welles? Lol. As far as Jack Warner goes, assuming you mean what I think you mean, the rich bad guy of The Social Network wasn't exactly a gentile. Also, can I just point out the irony of complaining about the dryness of this plot when the movie it is based on, often considered the greatest movie of all time, is about a newspaper tycoon that likes sleds? Heh. This is a netflix movie and I doubt the budget is astronomical or stopping anything else from getting made. Of all cynical Hollywood productions, this seems a weird hill to die on. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 9, 2020 22:07:58 GMT
You're suggesting they're trying to invoke Donald Trump with Orson Welles? Lol. As far as Jack Warner goes, assuming you mean what I think you mean, the rich bad guy of The Social Network wasn't exactly a gentile. No that's different--because a)that was before the Trump era and b) the Social Network is advertising a product in circulation now--who knows what the true motive was in making that film. Maybe the intention was to boost its marketing--besides it was a Sorkin project as much as a Fincher one. The Simpsons did a Zuckerberg episode which came out the same week the Social Network did. Plus the creation of Facebook was so multicultural, with Citizen Kane, Orson Welles was considered the "genius" behind it for decades, so if it makes him out to be a jerk or a thief then I will look at the timing and ultimate message. Welles' film served a purpose though, to slander Hearst who was one of the only WASP American publishers (he also published reports on murders in the USSR when others would not).
Conspiracy theories sure are fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 9, 2020 22:09:03 GMT
You never heard of her essay, Raising Kane?I might have but film critic essays are low on my radar screen. I read a couple of her reviews available online but mostly know her from Ebert bringing her up. She wrote an essay explaining why US movies got dumb in the late 70s but I don't agree with her conclusions. She was right that movie studios inherit audiences, but she had a ridiculous theory that oil men types were dictating movie production choices. The studios wanted to chase after the B movie crowd because they were losing them to independent companies. Had nothing to do with T Boone Pickens type guys telling them what to make.
I haven’t read the entire thing, but the gist of it is that she claims Mankiewicz was the reason CK turned out to be so great, and that Orson Welles wrongly took credit for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 9, 2020 22:15:16 GMT
I might have but film critic essays are low on my radar screen. I read a couple of her reviews available online but mostly know her from Ebert bringing her up. She wrote an essay explaining why US movies got dumb in the late 70s but I don't agree with her conclusions. She was right that movie studios inherit audiences, but she had a ridiculous theory that oil men types were dictating movie production choices. The studios wanted to chase after the B movie crowd because they were losing them to independent companies. Had nothing to do with T Boone Pickens type guys telling them what to make.
I haven’t read the entire thing, but the gist of it is that she claims Mankiewicz was the reason CK turned out to be so great, and that Orson Welles wrongly took credit for it. Both won an Oscar for it though.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 9, 2020 23:49:45 GMT
You're suggesting they're trying to invoke Donald Trump with Orson Welles? Lol. As far as Jack Warner goes, assuming you mean what I think you mean, the rich bad guy of The Social Network wasn't exactly a gentile. No that's different--because a)that was before the Trump era and b) the Social Network is advertising a product in circulation now--who knows what the true motive was in making that film. Maybe the intention was to boost its marketing--besides it was a Sorkin project as much as a Fincher one. The Simpsons did a Zuckerberg episode which came out the same week the Social Network did. Plus the creation of Facebook was so multicultural, with Citizen Kane, Orson Welles was considered the "genius" behind it for decades, so if it makes him out to be a jerk or a thief then I will look at the timing and ultimate message. Welles' film served a purpose though, to slander Hearst who was one of the only WASP American publishers (he also published reports on murders in the USSR when others would not).
Conspiracy theories sure are fun.
So too Zuckerberg and Facebook. The movie pointed out he stole the core concept - from a couple of WASPs, no less. And between Zuckerberg and Hearst, we've hit two rich dudes that were demonized pre-Trump. I reckon his presidency is incidental to the movie. Especially wirh his "stand-in" being a well documented artsy liberal. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2020 0:07:00 GMT
So too Zuckerberg and Facebook. The movie pointed out he stole the core concept - from a couple of WASPs, no less. And between Zuckerberg and Hearst, we've hit two rich dudes that were demonized pre-Trump. I reckon his presidency is incidental to the movie. Especially wirh his "stand-in" being a well documented artsy liberal. Compared to Dw Griffith Welles was liberal, but biologically Welles is closer to Trump. He was a big loud confident guy married to Rita Hayworth. How far from Trump?
As for Zuckerberg, him stealing an idea from a couple of wealthy guys who got money in the end is not really all that villainous or cautionary--unlike the story of the guy who founded FM radio and had his life destroyed because a rival used Washington influence to ruin his business--or what happened to the company that created Captain Marvel. For nerdish stories about cultural trivia, there are definitely better ideas than these two.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Oct 10, 2020 0:17:09 GMT
So too Zuckerberg and Facebook. The movie pointed out he stole the core concept - from a couple of WASPs, no less. And between Zuckerberg and Hearst, we've hit two rich dudes that were demonized pre-Trump. I reckon his presidency is incidental to the movie. Especially wirh his "stand-in" being a well documented artsy liberal. Compared to Dw Griffith Welles was liberal, but biologically Welles is closer to Trump. He was a big loud confident guy married to Rita Hayworth. How far from Trump?
Every confident guy with a smokeshow wife is Donald Trump now? |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2020 0:26:43 GMT
Every confident guy with a smokeshow wife is Donald Trump now? To the narrow-minded worldview of media owners, yes.
But even in the 80s, we had Biff Tannen.
In the 70s, Buford T Justice.
The big/fat symbol of chieftain tyranny.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 10, 2020 0:33:17 GMT
How's this for a compromise. The talking tank could have an Orson Welles voice! Maurice LaMarche? He's impersonated Welles in several shows and movies, including "Ed Wood" (that's his voice dubbed over Vincent Donofrio)
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 10, 2020 0:39:22 GMT
This looks like it may have been influenced by Tim Burtons "Ed Wood" biopic (which incidently also featured Orson Welles)
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Oct 10, 2020 0:39:30 GMT
Maurice LaMarche? He's impersonated Welles in several shows and movies, including "Ed Wood" (that's his voice dubbed over Vincent Donofrio) I heard there was another guy who did Welles--in a UK movie a few years ago. Never saw it but he was praised for his performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 10, 2020 1:23:43 GMT
So too Zuckerberg and Facebook. The movie pointed out he stole the core concept - from a couple of WASPs, no less. And between Zuckerberg and Hearst, we've hit two rich dudes that were demonized pre-Trump. I reckon his presidency is incidental to the movie. Especially wirh his "stand-in" being a well documented artsy liberal. Compared to Dw Griffith Welles was liberal, but biologically Welles is closer to Trump. He was a big loud confident guy married to Rita Hayworth. How far from Trump?
As for Zuckerberg, him stealing an idea from a couple of wealthy guys who got money in the end is not really all that villainous or cautionary--unlike the story of the guy who founded FM radio and had his life destroyed because a rival used Washington influence to ruin his business--or what happened to the company that created Captain Marvel. For nerdish stories about cultural trivia, there are definitely better ideas than these two.
Was Orson Welles loud? I never got that impression from him.
|
|
