Filmmakers who lost their sheep

Started by Pro T-Bono, January 13, 2004, 11:32:56 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

modage

oceans 11 was fun.  i loved it.  the starpower coming off the screen nearly blinded me, and my immediate reaction was 'i wish they'd make more of these'.  not neccesarily sequels, but more movies with this group of actors.  i prefer it to schizopolis 100 times over.  (i just realized it may be hard to take someone seriously who looks like a vampire hunter...)
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

MacGuffin

My avatar either came at the right or wrong time.  :yabbse-undecided:
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Redlum

Oceans 11 - definately fun.
Erin - it was alright. definately not an abomination. I just felt it had this Julia Roberts oscar vehicle thing about it.
Full Frontal - I really love. It's fresh. "universally regarded as a piece of shit". What does that have to do with your opinion?

Just thought your criticism was very harsh and unjustified.
http://www.xixax.com/viewforum.php?f=31
\"I wanted to make a film for kids, something that would present them with a kind of elementary morality. Because nowadays nobody bothers to tell those kids, \'Hey, this is right and this is wrong\'.\"
  -  George Lucas

pookiethecat

you're right.  perhaps it was a little harsh.   (forgive my exam-week-induced temperment).  but we're talking about filmmakers who lost their shit, and i think soderbergh has as evidenced by my opinions on the past 3 films he's made.  erin brockovich was insidious and insulting, featuring one of the worst examples of oscar-baiting ever.  and oceans 11 was a bunch of egos mugging in a terrible, lifeless story. full frontal was a movie with hollywood types superficially deprecating their hollywood image, but it lacked self-examination, and the egos were that much more condescending.
i wanna lick 'em.

billybrown

Quote from: pookiethecatyou're right.  perhaps it was a little harsh.   (forgive my exam-week-induced temperment).  but we're talking about filmmakers who lost their shit, and i think soderbergh has as evidenced by my opinions on the past 3 films he's made.  erin brockovich was insidious and insulting, featuring one of the worst examples of oscar-baiting ever.  and oceans 11 was a bunch of egos mugging in a terrible, lifeless story. full frontal was a movie with hollywood types superficially deprecating their hollywood image, but it lacked self-examination, and the egos were that much more condescending.


Soderbergh hasn't lost squat... as recently as 2000, he came out blasting with a very masterful film that was Traffic, and from that point, he made a conscious choice to do big, slick Hollywood Productions (Erin, Ocean's 11). He's mentioned many times about wanting to shift gears from studio, to small, indie-type films, hence Full Frontal, which was hardly an abomination. He did a 180 on Hollywood with his version of Solaris, which was the work of a gifted filmmaker- a very slow, psychological, sci-fi drama, love-story, which didn't revert to standard, melodramtically- accessible tripe that Hollywood generally churns out. IMO, it was quite ballsy a film to make considering he has become quite a bankable "Hollywood" director. He is still calling his own shots, making the films he wants to make, and doing it his way.

SoNowThen

Yes, a good point above from Billy Brown.




BTW, I'm starting to hate this thread. It's depressing. We've run out of intelligent and valid people to discuss (Coppola, Rafelson), and are now onto real subjective bullshit talking-to-talk. I appeal to an admin to lock this...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cron

i almost feel bad for posting this but i have to admit it: i didn't like The Pianist.
context, context, context.

Pubrick

uh yeah, and on that note this thread has officially lost its shit.
under the paving stones.

cron

not that i cared much about the thread....  :oops:
context, context, context.

pookiethecat

Quote from: chuckhimselfonot that i cared much about the thread....  :oops:

haha.

this thread is definitely not lockworthy.  i expressed an opinion, people disagreed, oh well.  that's the nature of film discussion.  no slurs or racism or personal attacks.  just enlightened discourse. ..i'm even finding myself intrigued by billy brown's description of solaris.  and his over soderbergh assessment makes sense.

so what's the big deal?
i wanna lick 'em.

Jeremy Blackman

Let me jump in to defend Soderbergh. The Limey, Traffic, Full Frontal, and Solaris all have as much (if not more) power for me as Sex, Lies & Videotape. That's what he's supposed to be living up to, right?

Pubrick

Quote from: pookiethecatso what's the big deal?
there is no big deal., SNT just suggested it be locked, no one signed anything.

it's just that this began as a sort of realistic thing on directors who've lost their shit, and now it's become totally nothing. it's pretty obvious to anyone with eyes that soderbergh hasn't lost anything, in fact he's prolly become exponentially better in the last 5 years. making one or 2 commerical flops doesn't count as "falling off". sheesh, maybe if he was john travolta.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

It seems ludicrous to try and say a guy's "lost his shit" when he's not even through the middle part of his career. This discussion belongs in the Soderbergh thread if it's gonna be a bunch of opinion pieces on his body of work thus far...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cron

i agree. it's not fair to say some director lost his shit...  it even sounds vulgar...  c'mon people, be decent.

EDIT: change the name to "directors who have lost their doggie-doo"
context, context, context.

Slick Shoes

Directors on the verge of losing their shit, or: Directors with dingleberries.