We're still deciding what to do on Thursdays now that the James Bond series is over. We're leaning toward a Steven Spielberg series, but other suggestions would be appreciated. In any event, give us a couple weeks to prepare.
maybe some discussion/analysis on the careers of great actors and actresses. What films they did; which ones were most demanding, what made them be considered great/ did the respect translate to box office magic, etc. Just a thought.
How about "War film of the week?" I recently caught a "classic" World War II era film and boy has it aged badly. I think there is great room for discussion here.
FilmSchoolRejects used to do an "Overrated/Underpraised" column, i.e. "Slap Shot gets the glory, but Goon is the better hockey movie" They haven't done them for about 8 months, so maybe you could filch the idea.
Goon was merely okay. Seann William Scott proves to be a wonderfully-underrated actor and Liev Schreiber was good as usual... but Jay Baruchel (who also co-wrote it) was sooo annoying!
Andrew, you've talked many times in the past about how Stephen King seems to steal ideas from whole genres before writing his new books. So, in the spirit of your previous 'Star Trek TNG Takedowns,' (actually, we could probably do a few more of those as well), how about some Stephen King takedowns listing the scenes in films or shows that were violated while the thief was at work? -and some of his awful politics, while you're at it.
Since my first idea is essentially moot, I'm just spitballin' here, but what if we gave Tom Hanks' filmography a treatment? And I will share the inspiration for this notion was a highly unlikely gangsta rap video dedicated to Hanks that includes name drops for Meg Ryan, Nora Ephron, and Sally Field, and more sly film references than you though possible. ("ballin' like Wilson" anyone?)
I've got to tell you, my love for Tom Hanks has really faded fast over the years. And it's not just his diving into politics. There's something about his films that have changed where he's just a lot less likeable than he used to be.
How about a type of movie that is always overlooked... Martial Arts movies! Or at the very least great Action movies. Both of these types of movies are overlooked by movie snobs but are both popular (think metal music)...
Either that or some discussion on remakes of foreign movies. The good the bad and the ugly.
I don't know if there's a big enough audience for it, but maybe an occasional gaming feature? There are definitely a few things I'd like to see the resident gamers' take on.
I'm going to step into the lion's den and suggest religious films. I don't know if there is another genre that rose so high and quickly to epic class and fallen just as fast to amateur status. Faith battling cynicsim shown large. And now, the best features of faith are coming out from the amateurs. There's a story there.
I figured as much, but also figured it couldn't hurt to throw it out there as a possibility! Well, the topic does come up every now and again so I suppose I'll just have to keep my eye out for it. =)
What if we took a specific film trade and discussed it each week: art direction, FX (you still have that roundtable discussion I sent you), editing, cinematography, etc....?
What we like, what we don't like, cliches, things we'd like to see, etc.
Andrew, I kind of gathered that for the martial arts part, but plenty of people love action movies.
How about film/TV remakes, the good the bad the ugly!
Remakes of old classics, remakes of foreign films or TV shows. Some work well, some fail miserably, some big old classic to a new audience and some are pure cash grabs.
Baring that how about looking at movies made from books. Again, look at the good, the bad and the ugly.
Please let my clarify my war film post. What I meant was not a film done during the War, but one of the "classic" films about that war done some twenty years later. And how attitudes and perceptions of that conflict changed over time. Remember, most of those guys making those films in the 50s and 60s had actually served or played some role in it. That's my suggestion.
I was thinking the other day of discussions of alternate casting choices, like famous roles that could have been filled by different actors, or were filled but got changed during production. For example, Kurt Russell as Han Solo, Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones, James Remar as Corporal Hicks, or John Lithgow as Doc Brown. How would they have fared? Stuff like that.
Andrew: The film in question was "Where Eagles Dare" from the mid-60s, which has a 90% or above on both Rottentomatoes and with fans. It had all I remember, intricate, twisting and turning Alistair Maclean plot (My Father said he left the theatre still not knowing who the real traitor was), the exotic setting with the cable car going up to the castle, and a very good cast. But the action scenes are downright ridiculous. Bad sound effects and poor staging. Clint or Richard Burton just point their gun at the seemingly hundreds of German soldiers (just how big of a garrison did this castle have anyway? A brigade at least?) and dozens of them fall like nine pins, while, of course, they can't hit a single thing, even at close range. This film must have a German body count of over 100. We're getting into "Wild Bunch" territory here.
PikeBishop, Hollywood was never into realism until recently. In the past, stories were always stylizes for a number of reasons. In the 1940s, war was clean and patriotic to get people excited. In the 1950s, war was dark, cold and depressing because audiences knew better. In the 1960s, everything was cool. And to be cool means to be effortless and blase about heroic deeds. Hence, you flick your wrist and 100 Germans die... because your so cool.
In the 1980s, there was greater attempt at realism combine with finger pointing. In the 1990s, it was all about gore. That's where we are now.
As you move through these waves, the older ones start to feel fake or foreign because you have moved beyond their styles into the new style -- much in the same way that music or animation feels dated over time and older styles seem simplistic and not as advanced.
I've got it! We should have "Thirsty Thursday" where we post the drinking rules for a popular film, all of us watch it and then report in with our comments on Friday. (If we are able.)
maybe some discussion/analysis on the careers of great actors and actresses. What films they did; which ones were most demanding, what made them be considered great/ did the respect translate to box office magic, etc. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteHow about "War film of the week?" I recently caught a "classic" World War II era film and boy has it aged badly. I think there is great room for discussion here.
ReplyDeleteI recently saw a LIST ranking the Marvel Studios films. We could take our own crack at it.
ReplyDeleteThanks guys! Interesting ideas. We're actually going to do a Marvel thing this summer.
ReplyDeleteYou know, if you did the entire live-action Marvel movie catalog, that would include Howard the Duck? :D
ReplyDeleteWe should do a group Skype commentary for The Room. Definitely. :-)
ReplyDeleteKurosawa, Hitchcock, or Tarantino! Or you could go the other way and do a book series?
ReplyDeleteFilmSchoolRejects used to do an "Overrated/Underpraised" column, i.e. "Slap Shot gets the glory, but Goon is the better hockey movie" They haven't done them for about 8 months, so maybe you could filch the idea.
ReplyDeleteDave -
ReplyDeleteGoon was merely okay. Seann William Scott proves to be a wonderfully-underrated actor and Liev Schreiber was good as usual... but Jay Baruchel (who also co-wrote it) was sooo annoying!
Andrew, you've talked many times in the past about how Stephen King seems to steal ideas from whole genres before writing his new books. So, in the spirit of your previous 'Star Trek TNG Takedowns,' (actually, we could probably do a few more of those as well), how about some Stephen King takedowns listing the scenes in films or shows that were violated while the thief was at work? -and some of his awful politics, while you're at it.
ReplyDeleteThose are all good ideas folks. I particularly like the Stephen King idea. We should work that in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteAnon, Kurosawa and Hitchcock were both on my short list, only I'm not sure how people would respond.
ReplyDeleteDave, That's a great idea too.
ReplyDeleteSince my first idea is essentially moot, I'm just spitballin' here, but what if we gave Tom Hanks' filmography a treatment? And I will share the inspiration for this notion was a highly unlikely gangsta rap video dedicated to Hanks that includes name drops for Meg Ryan, Nora Ephron, and Sally Field, and more sly film references than you though possible. ("ballin' like Wilson" anyone?)
ReplyDeleteI've got to tell you, my love for Tom Hanks has really faded fast over the years. And it's not just his diving into politics. There's something about his films that have changed where he's just a lot less likeable than he used to be.
ReplyDeleteHow about a type of movie that is always overlooked... Martial Arts movies! Or at the very least great Action movies. Both of these types of movies are overlooked by movie snobs but are both popular (think metal music)...
ReplyDeleteEither that or some discussion on remakes of foreign movies. The good the bad and the ugly.
Scott.
I don't know if there's a big enough audience for it, but maybe an occasional gaming feature? There are definitely a few things I'd like to see the resident gamers' take on.
ReplyDelete- Daniel
I'm going to step into the lion's den and suggest religious films. I don't know if there is another genre that rose so high and quickly to epic class and fallen just as fast to amateur status. Faith battling cynicsim shown large. And now, the best features of faith are coming out from the amateurs. There's a story there.
ReplyDeleteKRS, I'm going to talk about the new Noah film and the controversy around it next Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteScott and Daniel, Sadly, I suspect those are areas that don't have a very broad appeal.
ReplyDeleteI figured as much, but also figured it couldn't hurt to throw it out there as a possibility! Well, the topic does come up every now and again so I suppose I'll just have to keep my eye out for it. =)
ReplyDelete- Daniel
Andrew -
ReplyDeleteWhat if we took a specific film trade and discussed it each week: art direction, FX (you still have that roundtable discussion I sent you), editing, cinematography, etc....?
What we like, what we don't like, cliches, things we'd like to see, etc.
Andrew, I kind of gathered that for the martial arts part, but plenty of people love action movies.
ReplyDeleteHow about film/TV remakes, the good the bad the ugly!
Remakes of old classics, remakes of foreign films or TV shows. Some work well, some fail miserably, some big old classic to a new audience and some are pure cash grabs.
Baring that how about looking at movies made from books. Again, look at the good, the bad and the ugly.
Scott.
Please let my clarify my war film post. What I meant was not a film done during the War, but one of the "classic" films about that war done some twenty years later. And how attitudes and perceptions of that conflict changed over time. Remember, most of those guys making those films in the 50s and 60s had actually served or played some role in it. That's my suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the other day of discussions of alternate casting choices, like famous roles that could have been filled by different actors, or were filled but got changed during production. For example, Kurt Russell as Han Solo, Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones, James Remar as Corporal Hicks, or John Lithgow as Doc Brown. How would they have fared? Stuff like that.
ReplyDeleteThanks everyone! Those are all great ideas and they definitely deserve to be covered. We'll see what we can do. :)
ReplyDeletePikeBishop, As an aside, I've noticed that a lot of those films don't hold up so well anymore. I'm not sure why.
ReplyDeleteAndrew: The film in question was "Where Eagles Dare" from the mid-60s, which has a 90% or above on both Rottentomatoes and with fans. It had all I remember, intricate, twisting and turning Alistair Maclean plot (My Father said he left the theatre still not knowing who the real traitor was), the exotic setting with the cable car going up to the castle, and a very good cast. But the action scenes are downright ridiculous. Bad sound effects and poor staging. Clint or Richard Burton just point their gun at the seemingly hundreds of German soldiers (just how big of a garrison did this castle have anyway? A brigade at least?) and dozens of them fall like nine pins, while, of course, they can't hit a single thing, even at close range. This film must have a German body count of over 100. We're getting into "Wild Bunch" territory here.
ReplyDeletePikeBishop, Hollywood was never into realism until recently. In the past, stories were always stylizes for a number of reasons. In the 1940s, war was clean and patriotic to get people excited. In the 1950s, war was dark, cold and depressing because audiences knew better. In the 1960s, everything was cool. And to be cool means to be effortless and blase about heroic deeds. Hence, you flick your wrist and 100 Germans die... because your so cool.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1980s, there was greater attempt at realism combine with finger pointing. In the 1990s, it was all about gore. That's where we are now.
As you move through these waves, the older ones start to feel fake or foreign because you have moved beyond their styles into the new style -- much in the same way that music or animation feels dated over time and older styles seem simplistic and not as advanced.
I've got it! We should have "Thirsty Thursday" where we post the drinking rules for a popular film, all of us watch it and then report in with our comments on Friday. (If we are able.)
ReplyDelete