Author Topic: The New World  (Read 28771 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

metroshane

  • Director of Photography
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
  • Respect: 0
    • http://www.explosivofilms.com
Re: The New World
« Reply #45 on: June 13, 2005, 11:23:51 AM »
0
I must have been confused by the title.

Is that a real miniseries?  If so, I'm going to buy a lotto ticket.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

lamas

  • Screenwriter
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • Respect: 0
Re: The New World
« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2005, 11:36:53 AM »
0
re-direct this if you need to.

anyone else get the feeling that Spielberg is Malick's bitch?  First, Malick releases Badlands in '73 which is followed by Spielberg's more commercial version of the "lovers on the run" theme, '74's Sugarland Express.  Malick is set to film The Thin Red Line and Spielberg comes out with the more commercialized version of the WWII drama with Saving Private Ryan.  Now, Malick's got his American Indian epic coming out and Spielberg executive produces Into the West.  how 'bout you stop biting the master Spielberg?!

meatball

  • Extra
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: The New World
« Reply #47 on: June 13, 2005, 12:14:35 PM »
0
Quote from: metroshane
I must have been confused by the title.


Definitely. Did you even watch the trailer? Or know a bit about American history?

metroshane

  • Director of Photography
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
  • Respect: 0
    • http://www.explosivofilms.com
Re: The New World
« Reply #48 on: June 13, 2005, 12:23:23 PM »
0
I only saw a teaser.  But I don't usually get my American History from Hollywood movies...except for that economics bit in Good Will Hunting.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

meatball

  • Extra
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Respect: 0
Re: The New World
« Reply #49 on: June 13, 2005, 12:25:12 PM »
0
Quote from: Ghostboy
NEW TRAILER!

cowboykurtis

  • over-achiever
  • *****
  • Posts: 1671
  • Respect: +4
Re: The New World
« Reply #50 on: June 13, 2005, 01:01:08 PM »
0
Quote from: lamas


anyone else get the feeling that Spielberg is Malick's bitch?  


...No...
...your excuses are your own...

metroshane

  • Director of Photography
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
  • Respect: 0
    • http://www.explosivofilms.com
Re: The New World
« Reply #51 on: June 13, 2005, 04:12:35 PM »
0
OK, watched the trailer and I must admit is looks fascinating.  NOT!  What a yawn fest.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

lamas

  • Screenwriter
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • Respect: 0
Re: The New World
« Reply #52 on: June 22, 2005, 09:35:25 AM »
0
FYI, the film's website www.thenewworldmovie.com has been updated with a blog, podcasts, sketchbook and other assorted poop.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11874
  • Respect: +367
Re: The New World
« Reply #53 on: June 22, 2005, 10:29:57 AM »
0
there's even sumthing for Metros Hane..

http://thenewworldmovie.com/readinglist.pdf

right-click and save target as.

metroshane

  • Director of Photography
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
  • Respect: 0
    • http://www.explosivofilms.com
Re: The New World
« Reply #54 on: June 22, 2005, 01:14:04 PM »
0
Maybe Collin Ferrel will come over to my house, read to me, make me learn to smoke and then punch me in the nose.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22355
  • Respect: +293
Re: The New World
« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2005, 12:17:50 PM »
0
New World, New Date
What do Pocahontas and Rudolph have in common?

New Line had set a November 9, 2005 release date for writer-director Terrence Malick's The New World, a retelling of the legend of Pocahontas and John Smith. But now, according to Box Office Mojo, the new release date is December 25th.

The New World had been expected to open wide on Nov. 9 but instead it will only open in L.A. and New York City on Dec. 25. The Christmas release date would allow the period drama to be eligible for Academy Award consideration. The film's new wide release date is set for Jan.13, 2006 (Friday the 13th!).
“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

Pwaybloe

  • over-achiever
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
  • Respect: +20
Re: The New World
« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2005, 12:30:59 PM »
0
Quote from: name deleted by modage

The New World had been expected to open wide on Nov. 9 but instead it will only open in L.A. and New York City on Dec. 25. The Christmas release date would allow the period drama to be eligible for Academy Award consideration.


Does this sound right?  Is the Academy's annual nomination range not within a calender year?  Or is it just saying, "whew, we just got this movie in before the end of the year, dude.  Party at Malick's house!"

matt35mm

  • over-achiever
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • I'mma teach you 'bout The Worm.
  • Respect: +136
    • My Films on Vimeo
Re: The New World
« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2005, 01:10:38 PM »
0
It just means that it's a movie expected to get Oscar heat, which would be the main point of sale for this movie's target audience.  The Oscar nomination range is from Jan 1 to Dec 31.

By releasing it at the very end of the year, you could have it playing in theaters still while all the Oscar buzz is going around.  If it does well enough, it could even be playing after it's been nominated.  The period between nomination and awards ceremony is Oscar season, which is very enticing for studios with films that they feel are Oscar worthy.

If released in early-November, it would be out of theaters by the time any serious Oscar buzz surrounds it.

Pwaybloe

  • over-achiever
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
  • Respect: +20
Re: The New World
« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2005, 02:29:47 PM »
0
I understand the marketing.  That's the one thing that I do understand about Hollywood.  The statement just sounded incorrect.  

If they just put "better" in front of "elgible," the sentence would make more sense.

matt35mm

  • over-achiever
  • *****
  • Posts: 3022
  • I'mma teach you 'bout The Worm.
  • Respect: +136
    • My Films on Vimeo
Re: The New World
« Reply #59 on: August 29, 2005, 02:36:19 PM »
0
Oh.  I read the sentence as meaning that they wanted to push it back, but by keeping it within this year, it is still eligible for this year's Oscars.