|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 8, 2021 9:54:09 GMT
I can say with 100% certainty that i will not watch this movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 8, 2021 10:36:41 GMT
Probably as unnecessary as those behind-the-scene movies on Full House and Saved By The Bell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 8, 2021 16:00:10 GMT
Don't worry, this movie won't be made... because it's not a movie.
😁
|
|
|
|
Post by ghostintheshell on May 8, 2021 16:35:43 GMT
Is this really a story that needs to be immortalized in cinema?
And Lily James is almost unrecognizable in that picture, I low-key thought she was Pamela. That's an incredible transformation tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 8, 2021 16:42:53 GMT
Hollywood, always chasing what the public wants.
They say people don't want original stories but it is because they do not really try to do that.
They don't make enough to promote that.
They are committed to franchises in everything.
They will say it is the only thing people pay attention to but I don't think it is proven to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 8, 2021 17:04:10 GMT
It’s a TV movie...so no nudity...I’m not interested.
They mighta had me if we got a Lily James sex scene...I don’t know who she is but she seems pretty enough for me to watch her blow someone...but without that they lose me completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on May 8, 2021 17:49:34 GMT
It’s a TV movie...so no nudity...I’m not interested. They mighta had me if we got a Lily James sex scene...I don’t know who she is but she seems pretty enough for me to watch her blow someone...but without that they lose me completely. Watch The Exception. She has a nude scene in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 8, 2021 20:06:31 GMT
They say people don't want original stories but it is because they do not really try to do that. They don't make enough to promote that. They are committed to franchises in everything. They will say it is the only thing people pay attention to but I don't think it is proven to be the case. But this isn't a sequel or remake. It's not even an adaptation of an autobiography. It’s a TV movie...so no nudity Huh? That's not a law or anything. Also, this is a mini-series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 8, 2021 20:08:26 GMT
But this isn't a sequel or remake. It's not even an adaptation of an autobiography. Technically it is a franchise--it is a celebrity name--so there's a brand unfortunately, to this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 8, 2021 20:15:05 GMT
Technically it is a franchise--it is a celebrity name--so there's a brand unfortunately, to this. Do you only say that because both of the subjects are still alive (and relatively young)? Or would this apply to dead celebrities as well? Is it only about people in the entertainment industry or any kind of historical figure?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 8, 2021 20:16:07 GMT
It’s a TV movie...so no nudity...I’m not interested. They mighta had me if we got a Lily James sex scene...I don’t know who she is but she seems pretty enough for me to watch her blow someone...but without that they lose me completely. I guarantee you this will be a mini-series made for a channel that allows swearing and graphic nudity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 8, 2021 20:24:12 GMT
Do you only say that because both of the subjects are still alive (and relatively young)? Or would this apply to dead celebrities as well? Is it only about people in the entertainment industry or any kind of historical figure? Any historical figure-sure they could be considered a brand in modern times the way things are with money and fame.
Lucy and Desi are another example. That's a brand in the sense of a celebrity that is known and has some monetary history behind it as well. But did people really want a Lucy and Desi movie? I doubt that very much.
It's also a new pr stunt to dress people up as a celebrity-like a new kind of cosplay thing. And makeup fx... so they hire a skinny person to play a fat one instead of finding someone with the same body type and appearance.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 8, 2021 22:27:01 GMT
I wouldn't watch a movie WITH Pamela Anderson so why would I watch one ABOUT her. Fuhgidaboudit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on May 9, 2021 0:00:46 GMT
So you’re not waiting for Charlie Bit My Finger: The Motion Picture?  |
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on May 9, 2021 1:09:42 GMT
I like some of Pamela Anderson's movies and Motley Crue's music but I don't want to see a televised biopic about their chaotic relationship (just as I didn't care to read about it in the gossip rags back in the day).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 9, 2021 7:49:36 GMT
Any historical figure-sure they could be considered a brand in modern times the way things are with money and fame.
Lucy and Desi are another example. That's a brand in the sense of a celebrity that is known and has some monetary history behind it as well. But did people really want a Lucy and Desi movie? I doubt that very much. I ask because writing a script based on real events isn't considered to be part of the "Hollywood is out of ideas" problem. In fact, if it's not adapted from anything, then it's still considered an original work. If people stopped writing about true stories, there would be a lot fewer movies. It's also a new pr stunt to dress people up as a celebrity-like a new kind of cosplay thing. And makeup fx... so they hire a skinny person to play a fat one instead of finding someone with the same body type and appearance. What do you mean? Plenty of actors do those kinds of things for real as part of their method.
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on May 9, 2021 13:44:34 GMT
So you’re not waiting for Charlie Bit My Finger: The Motion Picture? “Chalie bit me”. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 9, 2021 16:51:47 GMT
I ask because writing a script based on real events isn't considered to be part of the "Hollywood is out of ideas" problem. In fact, if it's not adapted from anything, then it's still considered an original work. If people stopped writing about true stories, there would be a lot fewer movies. What do you mean? Plenty of actors do those kinds of things for real as part of their method. First--it is part of running out of ideas--because Hollywood created those celebrities. Pam and Tommy were pushed into the media focus. Who cared about their private lies? Nobody did. It wasn't a Lucy and Desi situation where they had a successful comedy show.
The issue here is, are there more interesting private lives stories they could have done? YES.
This is reaching well under the lowest common denominator.
As for the latter subject--when Marlon Brando put in makeup to play the Godfather--yeah that was an example of an early kind of makeup-driven performance--it factored into the casting. But all they did was change his face--we aren't talking about gaining or losing some weight for a role--we are talking about the use of full makeup and spfx to make someone portray a real-life person they may not in anyway resemble.
I said before--Warren Oates, Jay Silverheels and Jonathan Frid would not have been chosen to portray each other's roles. No way would Frid have been chosen to play Dillinger. Oates would not have been chosen to play Tonto. Silverheels wouldnt have been Barnabas Collins.
But Johnny Depp did all three.
DiCaprio has been Howard Hughes, Hoover, the guy Richard Harris played in the Man in the Wilderness... it used to be you got hired based on your type. But these days, anyone supposedly can play anyone else. Probably we will have a man playing a woman part without any irony to it. This is watering down of intensity in performances, in my view. They are using spfx tricks to sell it. It's like a cosplay thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 9, 2021 17:06:00 GMT
I think Tommy and Pam had only been together for four days before they got married and made the sex tape.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vits on May 9, 2021 19:09:04 GMT
As for the latter subject--when Marlon Brando put in makeup to play the Godfather--yeah that was an example of an early kind of makeup-driven performance--it factored into the casting. But all they did was change his face--we aren't talking about gaining or losing some weight for a role--we are talking about the use of full makeup and spfx to make someone portray a real-life person they may not in anyway resemble.
I said before--Warren Oates, Jay Silverheels and Jonathan Frid would not have been chosen to portray each other's roles. No way would Frid have been chosen to play Dillinger. Oates would not have been chosen to play Tonto. Silverheels wouldnt have been Barnabas Collins.
But Johnny Depp did all three. DiCaprio has been Howard Hughes, Hoover, the guy Richard Harris played in the Man in the Wilderness... it used to be you got hired based on your type. But these days, anyone supposedly can play anyone else. Probably we will have a man playing a woman part without any irony to it. This is watering down of intensity in performances, in my view. They are using spfx tricks to sell it. It's like a cosplay thing. You don't want actors to be hired to play characters that are too physically different? That's odd. Usually the argument thrown around online to complain about agendas and such is the complete opposite.
|
|
