What's The Latest Film You Have Seen?

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 12-23-2016, 10:50 AM

I hate both of them too, doesn't change how fun the movies are. especially after rocky joined the cast.

**Frownland** · 12-23-2016, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy

I hate both of them too, doesn't change how fun the movies are. especially after rocky joined the cast.

They (well not really Paul Walker, I just hate all the media around his death) are actually a big factor in sucking the fun out of those movies for me.

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 12-23-2016, 10:59 AM

for real though where would you guys rank Vin Diesel in terms of least charismatic actors of all-time? he's literally the worst.

The Batlord · 12-23-2016, 11:03 AM

He was born to play Groot tho.

**Frownland** · 12-23-2016, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qwertyy

for real though where would you guys rank Vin Diesel in terms of least charismatic actors of all-time? he's literally the worst.

I was going to say Owen Wilson but his issue is more about the fact that he doesn't act than his charisma. I think he very well may be the worst.

Ol’ Qwerty Bastard · 12-23-2016, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

He was born to play Groot tho.

agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

I was going to say Owen Wilson but his issue is more about the fact that he doesn't act than his charisma. I think he very well may be the worst.

and agree

Owen Wilson was great in Midnight in Paris though. not that he acted any differently, but the role fit his personality so well it was clearly written with him in mind.

The Batlord · 12-23-2016, 11:15 AM

Throwing **** at Owen Wilson is like punching a really friendly but dumb dog.

**Frownland** · 12-23-2016, 11:20 AM

Dogs should not be actors.

Paedantic Basterd · 12-24-2016, 12:19 PM

So I'm watching the film Hotel New Hampshire because I just finished the book Hotel New Hampshire and I wanted to see how it was adapted.

The answer is terribly. Dear god, the direction of this film is truly terrible. The pacing is awful because the script writer tried to cram an entire lifetime into a film AND chose not to show the passage of time by keeping the characters the same age for all of it. The acting is hammy. There are comedic moments which are entirely inappropriate, and direction decisions to accompany them (such as the speeding up of the film during comedic scenes). The relationship between Franny and John feels gross because we didn't see how it progressed; it was just THERE, with no nuance or organic explanation. NONE of the beauty of Irving's language was even attempted in the direction or setting of the film. I mean, with writing like that the least you can do is make a visually stunning film to try and reflect it.

I mean, of course it was garbage. That's why I didn't know a film had been made until after googling the book cover, but it's a shame because it could be so beautiful. In my mind it looks much more like a Wes Anderson film (of course, he could never direct it because it's halfway between the Royal Tenenbaums and the Grand Budapest, so it's derivative of his existing work. Perhaps that's why I read it with him in mind in the first place).

Irving himself said that if he had to level a criticism at the film, it would be that it was too faithful to the book and tried to include too much. I think that's fair, but also encouraging. Honestly, films should be different from books. What you can do in a book is VERY different from what you can do in a script. They're completely different mediums of artwork that necessitate different approaches, and while we all want films to be faithful to the books they came from, it's not possible to replicate a book onscreen. Telling and showing are two completely different processes that allow different liberties and require different structures.

I'm honestly pretty surprised the ****ty 80s version was made given the nature of Franny and John's relationship. Anyways, point is, I still think a stunning Hotel New Hampshire could be made.

EDIT: Also, the film makes no ****ing sense if you haven't read the book. One of the most important things about an adaptation is that people can follow the plot if they aren't familiar with the book. You still have to tell the story, you can't just film a hodgepodge of scenes from a book and hope it makes sense with no underlying structure, character development, or exposition.

innerspaceboy · 12-24-2016, 03:59 PM

Presently watching Metanoia Films' documentary Psywar (The Real Battlefield Is The Mind).

I'd previously enjoyed Counter Intelligence, Plutocracy, and Human Resources: Social Engineering int the 20th Cenutry.

Each features interviews with Chomsky, Zinn, and others on the history of government propaganda.

Not as riveting as Adam Curtis' The Century of the Self but just as relevant.

12-23-2016, 11:20 AM	#18368 (permalink)
Frownland SOPHIE FOREVER Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: East of the Southern North American West Posts: 35,541	Dogs should not be actors. __________________ Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. d e a f b o x

12-24-2016, 12:19 PM	#18369 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	So I'm watching the film Hotel New Hampshire because I just finished the book Hotel New Hampshire and I wanted to see how it was adapted. The answer is terribly. Dear god, the direction of this film is truly terrible. The pacing is awful because the script writer tried to cram an entire lifetime into a film AND chose not to show the passage of time by keeping the characters the same age for all of it. The acting is hammy. There are comedic moments which are entirely inappropriate, and direction decisions to accompany them (such as the speeding up of the film during comedic scenes). The relationship between Franny and John feels gross because we didn't see how it progressed; it was just THERE, with no nuance or organic explanation. NONE of the beauty of Irving's language was even attempted in the direction or setting of the film. I mean, with writing like that the least you can do is make a visually stunning film to try and reflect it. I mean, of course it was garbage. That's why I didn't know a film had been made until after googling the book cover, but it's a shame because it could be so beautiful. In my mind it looks much more like a Wes Anderson film (of course, he could never direct it because it's halfway between the Royal Tenenbaums and the Grand Budapest, so it's derivative of his existing work. Perhaps that's why I read it with him in mind in the first place). Irving himself said that if he had to level a criticism at the film, it would be that it was too faithful to the book and tried to include too much. I think that's fair, but also encouraging. Honestly, films should be different from books. What you can do in a book is VERY different from what you can do in a script. They're completely different mediums of artwork that necessitate different approaches, and while we all want films to be faithful to the books they came from, it's not possible to replicate a book onscreen. Telling and showing are two completely different processes that allow different liberties and require different structures. I'm honestly pretty surprised the ***ty 80s version was* made given the nature of Franny and John's relationship. Anyways, point is, I still think a stunning Hotel New Hampshire could be made. EDIT: Also, the film makes no ***ing sense if you haven't read the book. One of the most important things about an adaptation is that people can follow the plot if they aren't familiar with the book. You still have to tell the story, you can't just film a hodgepodge of scenes from a book and hope it makes sense with no underlying structure, character development, or exposition. Last edited by Paedantic Basterd; 12-24-2016 at 12:44 PM.*