XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Martin Scorsese => Topic started by: MacGuffin on July 24, 2012, 08:46:21 AM

Title: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: MacGuffin on July 24, 2012, 08:46:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z714Fnylf5s
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on July 24, 2012, 07:22:53 PM
Fuck you, Martin! You are breaking my heart. Please stop being a huckster and get back to making personal and honest and lower budgeted movies again... but we all know that's not going to happen. There will be no more risks of any real capacity, no forthright struggle to get anything worth making made (Silence, his 17th century Jesuits in Japan movie, has been in a constant state of pre-production on IMDb for years now with each new project coming in going to the front of the line). He's a careerist now. He wants and gets go projects with big talent attached but he's evolving into a company man, a studio director for hire, because of it. Maybe he's taking a leaf out of De Niro's book (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZxUhCE5l8), looking back at a masterful career that validates him as one of the best, and cashing in... In other news: he's shooting his next film, The Wolf of Wall Street, on digital and abandoning film for good. He calls it embracing, I call it a career move. Why rock the boat now, in lieu of a paycheck? Why resist, at 69, after decades of using film and fighting tooth and nail to get his singular vision across? Now, as evident in that god awful iPhone ad, he's as much a personality as a filmmaker. He's helping to preserve and restore films for the good of motion picture history but picking up a shovel to help fill a part of celluloid's filling grave.

Here he is in action again, this time hocking a Canon EOS while gushing about the rich blacks it produces (along with other nauseating sound bites):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy0ozn2YPAo

What the fuck happened to you, man? Your ass used to be BEAUTIFUL!!!
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Reelist on July 24, 2012, 07:35:19 PM
Fuck you, Martin! You are breaking my heart. Please stop being a huckster and get back to making personal and honest and lower budgeted movies again...

at least he was referencing one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tiHTm6nBUw
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on July 24, 2012, 07:57:51 PM
It's pure caricature, which makes it that much worse somehow. From "You should see what a .44 Magnum's gonna do to a woman's pussy" to talking to a phone. It's a long way down... (or up, depending on the person)
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: ©brad on July 24, 2012, 09:58:38 PM
He's been directing and starring in commercials for a while now, I don't get how this one iPhone ad is the tipping point of him selling out. This argument (which is bullshit) could and has been made a while ago.

At his age and with his filmography he doesn't really owe us anything.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on July 24, 2012, 11:11:36 PM
At his age and with his filmography he doesn't really owe us anything.

I know he doesn't. I just wish he wasn't abandoning film for digital, talking to a phone in a commercial, remaking Boiler Room and doing a Sinatra biopic possibly featuring DiCaprio with blue contact lenses.

Why is the argument bullshit? I don't like him in the commercials but I'll look the other way if he directs them. I like directors to stay behind the camera where they belong. The iPhone ad is 'the tipping point of him selling out' because: a) it's a dreadful commercial and I hate the idea of people talking to their phones, and; b) it will be seen by many more eyes than anything he's previously lent his face to. I'm surprised they didn't cut a check for Bobby to be driving the taxi... and besides, no one wants to see their heroes very pointedly selling out.

........and you were right, there are plenty more to my horror:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkwabNPsvTA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGcZwfBbXU0

rinse your commercial viewing palate with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FnAV1XbfKE

I came across this tidbit featuring Scorsese answering Sofia Coppola's question of: Who's your favourite Beastie Boy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFB7GgwMzHI
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Reelist on July 24, 2012, 11:22:40 PM
that Wild Rabbit shit was fucking pathetic
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Alexandro on July 25, 2012, 11:21:17 AM
The iPhone add is terrible, no question about that.

But Scorsese playing himself in movies and adds is an old story by now, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
Scorsese's time as an indie filmmaker struggling to get projects done has long been over, I would say even as back a Cape Fear. If I remember correctly, during the mid 80's he was actually asking for financial help from his dad. This is after directing Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. I bet when he sized the chance to become a studio director he just took it and has never let it go.
He likes the big budgets, he has said countless times that he dreams of being a studio director for hire like some heroes of his, and perhaps he is getting it done.

Despite my reservations with some of his recent films, I would never call stuff like Shutter Island and Hugo paycheck jobs that required no passion from the man. If he were to make another "gritty" film like Taxi Driver, that would be for me a true hack move.

I don't see any heroism in filmmakers "fighting" for film versus digital. The ones who can shoot on film do that because they can afford it. When the money is needed and you have to go digital, you do that too. It's just a format, a tool. It's like dismissing films because they're not widescreen, or in black & white, or in 3d. Sorry but it's not that important.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Pubrick on July 25, 2012, 06:11:19 PM
theyarelegion has a point here though..

remaking Boiler Room and doing a Sinatra biopic possibly featuring DiCaprio with blue contact lenses.

He doesn't have to necessarily make "gritty" movies again, I don't think that's the right term for what's missing. In terms of production value, even as his films became slicker in the 90s with cape fear and casino, he at least was making interesting choices.. even masterpieces. But every film since gangs of new york has been missing something. With the exception of a few glimpses of humanity in the aviator, he doesn't seem concerned with the same themes that drove everything from Mean Streets to Bringing Out the Dead.

Maybe he's in a happier place and it is impossible to channel the anger of his early work, or the epic wisdom of his 90s films. Maybe now he just wants to entertain.

The trade off for his disciples is that following his films has become a chore, they used to be an inspiration.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: ©brad on July 26, 2012, 06:31:54 AM
There are biological realities that are easy to forget when we get pissed at our favorite filmmakers as they age. Dude is 69. There was a ferocity and anger that drove a lot of the themes of those early movies he might not possess anymore. Alexandro makes a good point too. Maybe he likes playing with bigger toys now. Maybe his priorities are shifted and he finally wants to amass some wealth for his family, I don't know. I won't pretend there hasn't been something missing from his films of the last decade, but even on his worst day there's always something interesting in them.

Tarantino said filmmakers always get worse as they age, not better, which is why he was in a rush to get his best shit out then retire (I doubt he'll ever do that but we'll see). Who knows what PTA will be doing at 70. It's totally fair to criticize Scorsese's choices and his affair with DiCaprio that I too wish had ended a couple movies ago, but to call him a sell-out and a fucking hack at 70 seems harsh and misguided.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Reelist on July 26, 2012, 09:11:57 AM
IMO, anyone who makes commercials is a major fucking sell-out









jk, cbrad
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Alexandro on July 26, 2012, 09:55:10 AM
I consider hunger to be the main motivational resource of filmmakers, which is why most guys make their best work while they're still young. Scorsese vomited his soul for a long time and now he's clearly making films from a more calculated point of view. I also think his experience with Harvey Weinstein and Gangs of New York was devastating for him. Anyone who has read some stories about that know that Scorsese is kind of a nightmare; volatile, violent, smashing stuff, screaming. And he and Weinstein just battled the hell of each other and the result is a film that I seriously doubt looks and feels like he wanted it. So after that there is a kind of cynicism in the way he approaches the projects. I'm speculating here of course, but I have the feeling that The Aviator is so energetic in part because Weinstein was a producer and Scorsese banned him from the set; and in some diabolical way he was enjoying this.

But about filmmakers in general, only a few of the masters keep the same level of awesomeness through the end. A rare exception is Buñuel, who had an amazing run with his last films; which I think has to do with him being in exile again having a social situation that feed him creatively (Franco in Spain); Kubrick, Bergman and Altman (in his own weird way) also come to mind.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on July 26, 2012, 11:03:03 AM
SO WHAT? The old guy just wants to make some money making some half-assed commercials... I don't see anything wrong with that. Scorsese has been Mainstream for a looong time now so is not a big deal. Now if it was someone like PTA or MALICK doing commercials that's a different story.


That iPhone 4 commercial did make me cringe when I saw it on tv though... It made me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on July 26, 2012, 11:08:33 AM

I don't see any heroism in filmmakers "fighting" for film versus digital. The ones who can shoot on film do that because they can afford it. When the money is needed and you have to go digital, you do that too. It's just a format, a tool. It's like dismissing films because they're not widescreen, or in black & white, or in 3d. Sorry but it's not that important.

It's nothing like dismissing a film because of widescreen, or whatever... it's a matter of film, celluloid, 35mm, 24fps, versus the incomparable... digital, video, a bad photocopy. Sorry but it is that important to a lot of people.

The trade off for his disciples is that following his films has become a chore, they used to be an inspiration.

Exactly.

There are biological realities that are easy to forget when we get pissed at our favorite filmmakers as they age. Dude is 69

Michael Haneke is 70 years old and his last film was The White Ribbon. His next movie just won The Palme d'Or.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Pubrick on July 26, 2012, 11:45:16 AM
Yeah I don't think the age argument holds up at all. Most master directors get better with age. In many cases they become even more daring. In fact this is one of the reasons it is clear that Tarantino is not one at all.

But then again most master directors don't get the chance to sell out. I'm not blaming Marty for his choices, they were smart financial decisions, it's just a sad simple observation that his current output is no longer essential.

It's an interesting coincidence that he and deniro both started declining around the same time. At least Marty is trying to go out in style.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Alexandro on July 26, 2012, 04:58:55 PM
Please, let's not compare Haneke, a dude who makes one film every two years, with Scorsese, who is involved in I've lost count of how many different projects and in different capacities each year. It's not a justification, but those are two completely different ways of living life, even. And if you ask me, Taxi Driver alone kicks haneke's complete filmography in the ass.

the digital vs film argument is really stupid. theyarelegion, you're saying that is not the same as dismissing films because they're widescreen, so I assume you do dismiss films because they're shot on digital. and that's just stupid. sorry. plenty of filmmakers have shown me to this day that using film or digital is not a deal breaker as far as how good a film can be is concerned. that's not to say I  don't prefer the feel and look of film, but I won't point my finger at anyone who uses digital as some sort of hack. Scorsese is working non stop for the preservation of films, not of "film", what's important is the work of art.

scorsese is using digital now because his last film bombed and he just can't afford to use film anymore. the money people are saying "nope". if he could bring his budgets down in a reasonable way like malick, he could actually keep using film. but he won't. that's it.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on July 26, 2012, 06:50:31 PM
Please, let's not compare Haneke, a dude who makes one film every two years, with Scorsese, who is involved in I've lost count of how many different projects and in different capacities each year. It's not a justification, but those are two completely different ways of living life, even. And if you ask me, Taxi Driver alone kicks haneke's complete filmography in the ass.

the digital vs film argument is really stupid. theyarelegion, you're saying that is not the same as dismissing films because they're widescreen, so I assume you do dismiss films because they're shot on digital. and that's just stupid. sorry. plenty of filmmakers have shown me to this day that using film or digital is not a deal breaker as far as how good a film can be is concerned. that's not to say I  don't prefer the feel and look of film, but I won't point my finger at anyone who uses digital as some sort of hack. Scorsese is working non stop for the preservation of films, not of "film", what's important is the work of art.

scorsese is using digital now because his last film bombed and he just can't afford to use film anymore. the money people are saying "nope". if he could bring his budgets down in a reasonable way like malick, he could actually keep using film. but he won't. that's it.


In my opinion, the only people who have made Digital look Mind blowingly good are SODERBERGH and FINCHER. After that, everybody else's movie looks good but not as good as film. 

With that said though, anybody that disregards a movie simply because is shot digitally is a fucking moron. A good movie is a good movie no matter what tools you use.

 To be honest, I disagree with you guys about Scorsese, I think the movies he has made in the last 10 years (Gangs, aviator, departed, shutter island and Hugo) are some of the best movies made in this Era, Scorsese still got it. The problem is when you compare them to Goodfellas or Taxi driver or Mean streets or raging bull, obviously they don't look or feel as good because those are some of the BEST MOVIES EVER MADE. Same thing when you compare "war horse" to "Jaws".. "War horse" was really good but it doesn't compare. And I think that's a curse that these old masters have on them, people will always compare their new work to their old stuff and 99% of the time, their old stuff is better.

Very few artists get "better" as they get older, because that spark, that hunger isn't there anymore. Now they do it just to do it, most of the time is just for money. But Scorsese is NOT one of those people. His movies are still amazing and he's STILL bringing new things to the table and though I am not as excited about his movies as I once was, he still one of the few true MASTERS that we got left. Gotta appreciate that.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Cloudy on July 26, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
Quote
In my opinion, the only people who have made Digital look Mind blowingly good are SODERBERGH and FINCHER. After that, everybody else's movie looks good but not as good as film.

I'd add Lars Von Trier to that list too. Melancholia/Antichrist...
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on July 27, 2012, 12:48:06 AM
Please, let's not compare Haneke, a dude who makes one film every two years, with Scorsese, who is involved in I've lost count of how many different projects and in different capacities each year. It's not a justification, but those are two completely different ways of living life, even. And if you ask me, Taxi Driver alone kicks haneke's complete filmography in the ass.

the digital vs film argument is really stupid. theyarelegion, you're saying that is not the same as dismissing films because they're widescreen, so I assume you do dismiss films because they're shot on digital. and that's just stupid. sorry. plenty of filmmakers have shown me to this day that using film or digital is not a deal breaker as far as how good a film can be is concerned. that's not to say I  don't prefer the feel and look of film, but I won't point my finger at anyone who uses digital as some sort of hack. Scorsese is working non stop for the preservation of films, not of "film", what's important is the work of art.

scorsese is using digital now because his last film bombed and he just can't afford to use film anymore. the money people are saying "nope". if he could bring his budgets down in a reasonable way like malick, he could actually keep using film. but he won't. that's it.

I wasn't comparing Michael Haneke to Martin Scorsese. I offered an age comparison. I pointed out the fact (to ©brad) that age is irrelevant, while he thought it simply a biological matter. Taxi Driver is an all-time favourite but I can't just compare that single film against another filmmakers entire filmography that features many incredible pieces of cinema. His film Caché (or Hidden) was shot on DV but for this (http://www.reverseshot.com/legacy/winter06/yearinreview/3.html) reason: "...it is no small matter that Haneke chose to shoot on digital video, for it allows him to radically destabilize the act of viewing. By using DV, the tactile or imagistic quality of the many surveillance videos surfacing on Georges and Anne’s doorsteps is identical to the unmediated images viewed by moviegoers from the theater, sending the diegetic status of any given image into doubt." I couldn't have articulated that as well. Caché is one of my favourites from Haneke.

Never assume, Alexandro! I don't dismiss a movie because its been shot on digital, I'll just wish it had been shot on film. I will still see a movie shot on digital. It's not a deal breaker and I don't think digital filmmakers are hacks for it. Some directors prefer making their movies on digital because they like it and others do it because of budgetary constraints. I'm just part of the ever shrinking keep-film-alive club. I know that Scorsese isn't working for the preservation of film itself, his move to digital told me that.

I don't think that Scorsese is necessarily using digital just because he can't afford to use film anymore. I'm sure the budget for The Wolf of Wall Street could accomodate his request for it to be shot on film. I think he might just feel that film is dying on the vine with digital projectors being installed in most multiplexes around the world and wants to stay ahead of the curve. It will be interesting to see him collaborating with a new cinematographer in Rodrigo Prieto (Amores perros, the last couple of Ang Lee movies) on Wolf. Maybe it will spawn a fresh style for the movie and for Scorsese. Maybe I'll be crazy about The Wolf of Wall Street co-starring Jonah Hill, but we'll see...

To be honest, I disagree with you guys about Scorsese, I think the movies he has made in the last 10 years (Gangs, aviator, departed, shutter island and Hugo) are some of the best movies made in this Era, Scorsese still got it. The problem is when you compare them to Goodfellas or Taxi driver or Mean streets or raging bull, obviously they don't look or feel as good because those are some of the BEST MOVIES EVER MADE. Same thing when you compare "war horse" to "Jaws".. "War horse" was really good but it doesn't compare. And I think that's a curse that these old masters have on them, people will always compare their new work to their old stuff and 99% of the time, their old stuff is better.

Very few artists get "better" as they get older, because that spark, that hunger isn't there anymore. Now they do it just to do it, most of the time is just for money. But Scorsese is NOT one of those people. His movies are still amazing and he's STILL bringing new things to the table and though I am not as excited about his movies as I once was, he still one of the few true MASTERS that we got left. Gotta appreciate that.

I think that Scorsese's last great movie was The Aviator. That's a not-so-guilty pleasure of mine. I love it. He really got at something with that one and I don't think that it gets the credit it deserves. Gangs of New York before it was a misfire for me. The Departed is already aging sketchily with the gaping plot holes becoming harder to ignore... and I saw it in the cinema twelve times. I certainly liked it when it first came out but at that time I was becoming a fully-fledged Scorsese fanatic and earning my stripes. I was chuffed just to see A Martin Scorsese Picture on the big screen for the first time so I love it just for that. If I never saw Shutter Island again that would be fine. Hugo wasn't a great, era-defining picture but I enjoyed it for the cinematography and when it shifted focus to cinema and its beginnings it was a joy to watch. I don't expect his output to be a constant stream of Taxi Driver's and Raging Bull's and they are indeed some of the best movies ever made. He doesn't have to prove himself to anyone, his backlog of classics do that for him. I just wish he was still striving to be brilliant and have a serious, relevant place in world cinema instead of advancing towards making entertainment movies.

:yabbse-thumbup: to whoever changed the title of the thread!

Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Arnzilla on July 29, 2012, 05:46:32 PM
Wow, the self-righteousness of this thread stinks of expensive cheese.

Scorsese is turning 70 this year and has a wife with Parkinson's and a 12 year-old. He had a mammoth tax lien as a result of being bilked by convicted accountant Kenneth Starr, but I guess none of you will ever have to worry about the financial well-being of your families. Good for you. I guess it's better to have your stuff sold on your front lawn post-mortem like Sammy Davis Jr.'s family had to suffer through. Or maybe you prefer the path taken by the late Andrew Breitbart's colleagues at Fox News holding their hats in their hands, begging viewers to send in alms to support his kids.

I haven't even mentioned that The Film Foundation also benefits from these sell-out adverts. Anyway, have a nice trip down the low road.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on July 29, 2012, 06:45:11 PM
^ Let's keep things civil.

That said, I agree. The definition of "selling out" is probably due for a re-evaluation. Martin Scorsese acting in a commercial truly fails to upset me in any way. It's a bigger issue when it starts to creep into your main body of work, with excessive product placement for example, or allowing your music to be used in a commercial for something morally objectionable.

Here are two perfect counter-examples. You can probably guess which one I approve of.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121721123435289073-email.html

http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2004/02/weens_unrelease.html
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: ©brad on July 29, 2012, 07:18:43 PM
^Yes.

I didn't mean to make such a sweeping generalization that all artists get worse as they get older. But generally most filmmakers do reach a point of diminishing returns at some point, especially once they're in their freakin' 70s. Guys like Haneke and Kubrick and Altman are anomalies. Scorsese making choices based on paychecks or whatever doesn't absolve him of criticism. All I'm saying is we might be giving him more shit than he really deserves, given his age and track record. His recent shit isn't that shitty.     
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on July 29, 2012, 09:10:53 PM
I haven't even mentioned that The Film Foundation also benefits from these sell-out adverts.

How so?
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: BB on July 30, 2012, 12:06:38 AM
Wow, the self-righteousness of this thread stinks of expensive cheese.

Scorsese is turning 70 this year and has a wife with Parkinson's and a 12 year-old. He had a mammoth tax lien as a result of being bilked by convicted accountant Kenneth Starr, but I guess none of you will ever have to worry about the financial well-being of your families. Good for you. I guess it's better to have your stuff sold on your front lawn post-mortem like Sammy Davis Jr.'s family had to suffer through. Or maybe you prefer the path taken by the late Andrew Breitbart's colleagues at Fox News holding their hats in their hands, begging viewers to send in alms to support his kids.

I haven't even mentioned that The Film Foundation also benefits from these sell-out adverts. Anyway, have a nice trip down the low road.

At least it's expensive cheese, I guess.

I don't care one way or the other about Scorsese's shillification. So long as an artist isn't advertising for evil shit, I begrudge them none. It's very, very easy money in ridiculous quantity for like six hours of your time. You'd be a fool to resist it.

That said, trying to appeal to Scorsese's publicized financial trouble and his difficult home life to justify this decision is silly. Yes, he got fleeced for something like $3 million a little while back. But he's got PLENTY more where that came from. I think $3 million is what he got paid upfront for Gangs of New York alone. Lots of people at his age live through similar circumstances and don't have $3 million to lose. Unless he's secretly taken extreme measures to fuck up his assets, he's not doing ads because he's short on money. Mind also that he'd have a lot more money if so much of it didn't disappear up his nose through the 70s and 80s. Not that I have any problem with his habits (he made a lot of great films high), but, financially, it is what it is.

As far as his filmmaking goes, while I haven't personally enjoyed most of his recent output (save for the documentaries), I don't think they're bad films necessarily. From Gangs of New York on, he's worked almost exclusively on big, big movies. Not since New York, New York would he have had this much money behind his films and (possibly as a result of what happened with that movie, though more likely just the state of movies today) these sort of budgets impose enormous restrictions on the risks he's allowed to take. And so to ensure himself the enormous canvas he desires, he's made popular, mainstream films. Decent ones too when compared with much of what else is out there. I don't think they're purely paycheck jobs. There's passion behind them, no matter how misplaced. And, like I said, I don't think he needs money. He could easily get, say, $30 million to make Silence any time without any restrictions whatsoever. I guess he envisions something on a larger scale than that would afford and for something with such niche-y appeal, financing would be hard to come by. Even with his formidable reputation.

Guys like Haneke and Kubrick and Altman are anomalies.

Haneke and Kubrick have a singularity of vision which the movie brat generation lacked from the get-go. They were too scattershot to ever hope for Kubrickian perfection. I don't think that was even their intention. I'm not sure Haneke is really, truly at Kubrick's level either (Funny Games, both the original and the remake are a bit of a mar on his record), but then, very few are. But he's still making good movies in old age, so I get what you mean. Altman, too, is often included in these discussion even though it's not entirely warranted. He ended strong, but made a bunch of kinda shitty movies. Has no one seen O.C. & Stiggs? Or The Gingerbread Man? Or Dr. T & the Women? I'm not saying they don't have their moments but they're nowhere near the films he made in the 70s. And I don't mean to knock the movie brat generation. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I generally don't hate even their clunkiest shit. I almost hate Jack.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: pete on July 30, 2012, 02:05:05 PM
"selling out" is a corny way to look at things.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Pubrick on July 31, 2012, 02:02:27 AM
Ok how about "corning out"
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on July 31, 2012, 07:44:34 AM
Ok how about "corning out"

Isn't that a Sexual euphemism?
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: polkablues on August 01, 2012, 01:57:40 AM
Ok how about "corning out"

Also known as "De Niro-ing".
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on August 01, 2012, 04:54:08 PM
Ok how about "corning out"

Also known as "De Niro-ing".

A fine example of both terms is defined in the video at the top of page one!
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Alexandro on August 02, 2012, 10:41:19 AM
I just came back to mention that all in all, I've also enjoyed his last few films. The only one I don't think I will revisit soon (I already tried and failed to enjoy it) is Hugo. Something is really off with that one. But The Departed is a great thriller, and I find it truly funny and exciting, it's what ideally, commercial movies should be. I've seen it a bunch of times and it always does the trick.

Shutter Island is in a strange position, because I just can't believe the premise yet I find the film fascinating. I've seen it four times and I can easily watch it many more. It's just great filmmaking, I guess, and DiCaprio, who always gets a lot of shit from everyone, is in his usual excellence.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Arnzilla on August 15, 2012, 11:16:19 PM
I haven't even mentioned that The Film Foundation also benefits from these sell-out adverts.

How so?
One example: When Scorsese partnered with Hennessey, they gave a quarter million to The Film Foundation

I think $3 million is what he got paid upfront for Gangs of New York alone. Lots of people at his age live through similar circumstances and don't have $3 million to lose. Unless he's secretly taken extreme measures to fuck up his assets, he's not doing ads because he's short on money. Mind also that he'd have a lot more money if so much of it didn't disappear up his nose through the 70s and 80s. Not that I have any problem with his habits (he made a lot of great films high), but, financially, it is what it is.
He didn't start making big money until 2002 with GONY, and he wound up giving back half his salary to cover budget overruns.

If a stranger walked up to you and said that you were making too much money, what would you think about that stranger's character?
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 15, 2012, 11:28:08 PM
It says at the end of the new "The Master" Trailer that the money recollected from the Special showing at the MusicBox theater will "Benefit THE FILM FOUNDATION".
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: polkablues on August 15, 2012, 11:36:18 PM
And I've made a charitable donation in your name to The Human Fund!

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/portrait.jpg)

The Human Fund: Money for People
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 15, 2012, 11:41:27 PM
Everytime someone references Seinfeld... an angel gets its wings.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on August 15, 2012, 11:48:07 PM
Everytime someone references Seinfeld... an angel gets it's wings.

Every time someone uses an apostrophe incorrectly, an angel loses its wings.

Couldn't resist... sorry.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on August 16, 2012, 11:13:04 AM
One example: When Scorsese partnered with Hennessey, they gave a quarter million to The Film Foundation

You are getting your Foundations mixed up (http://www.details.com/celebrities-entertainment/movies-and-tv/201204/martin-scorsese-hennessey-parkinsons-disease-3d-new-york).

DETAILS: You're working with Hennessy. Why did you decide to appear in their advertisement?
Martin Scorsese: The Michael J. Fox Foundation—Hennessy is donating $250,000. The Foundation means a lot to me.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 16, 2012, 11:21:07 AM

Martin Scorsese: The Michael J. Fox Foundation—Hennessy is donating $250,000. The Foundation means a lot to me.[/i]


Little Fun Fact:   Michael J. Fox was the Cameraman for all the 'Bourne' movies...
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Arnzilla on August 16, 2012, 11:42:56 AM

You are getting your Foundations mixed up (http://www.details.com/celebrities-entertainment/movies-and-tv/201204/martin-scorsese-hennessey-parkinsons-disease-3d-new-york).

DETAILS: You're working with Hennessy. Why did you decide to appear in their advertisement?
Martin Scorsese: The Michael J. Fox Foundation—Hennessy is donating $250,000. The Foundation means a lot to me.


Sorry, I got my cognacs mixed up, too. Scorsese also partnered with LOUIS XIII (http://www.worldnews.se/news/99590/louis-xiii-partners-with-the-film-foundation-to-advance-film-preservation/) to help The Film Foundation.
Quote
LOUIS XIII and The Film Foundation are both known for upholding living histories and have a shared purpose of artistry and heritage. The collaboration will include a contribution from LOUIS XIII to The Film Foundation in support of the foundation's film preservation activities in 2012, as well as additional support and participation at exclusive Film Foundation events.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Sleepless on August 16, 2012, 01:37:24 PM

Martin Scorsese: The Michael J. Fox Foundation—Hennessy is donating $250,000. The Foundation means a lot to me.[/i]


Little Fun Fact:   Michael J. Fox was the Cameraman for all the 'Bourne' movies...

^ Your best contribution to the board so far. I LOLed  :bravo:
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: BB on August 17, 2012, 11:49:49 PM
He didn't start making big money until 2002 with GONY, and he wound up giving back half his salary to cover budget overruns.

If a stranger walked up to you and said that you were making too much money, what would you think about that stranger's character?

To be fair, I never said he was making too much money. All I said was that he wasn't struggling financially, which, unless he's screwed his affairs very badly, he isn't. Even if he had to return half of his $3 million dollar salary, he took home for one film more than many people make in a lifetime. He isn't doing these ads because he personally needs the money, that's all I was saying. I don't care if he makes a billion dollars per picture. If someone's willing and able to pay it, good on him.

To answer your question though, in my personal circumstances, I would probably think the stranger was poor. If I was making millions of dollars every few couple years, I would probably think the stranger was right.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Arnzilla on August 18, 2012, 08:22:24 PM
To answer your question though, in my personal circumstances, I would probably think the stranger was poor. If I was making millions of dollars every few couple years, I would probably think the stranger was right.
I asked you to describe the stranger's character, not his financial well-being.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on August 22, 2012, 10:31:57 AM
Arnzilla, why are you talking in hypotheticals and "what if..?" scenarios?
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: Arnzilla on August 22, 2012, 11:47:48 PM
It depends.
Title: Re: iPhone Siri ad and the decline of an artist
Post by: theyarelegion on January 28, 2013, 06:40:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eekhRiYluU0

keanu calling marty out on his bullshit.....coming soon: "SILENCE 3D"