Author Topic: Rian Johnson  (Read 5431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RegularKarate

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 6044
  • Respect: +204
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/regularkarate/
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #15 on: May 17, 2010, 02:10:38 PM »
0
I don't know which is worse, that Johnson is making Time Cop or that Men in Black 3 is a thing.

modage

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10761
  • Respect: +698
    • Floating Heads
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #16 on: May 17, 2010, 05:09:59 PM »
0
I think Bruce Willis being in a movie nowadays pretty much guarantees it will be awful.  Brick was good though.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #17 on: May 17, 2010, 07:22:19 PM »
0
Brick was good though.

no it wasn't, it was insufferable.

this douche is 0 for 3.

willis is a perfect match for him.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2011, 09:23:22 AM »
0
Anyone Got A Time Machine? Rian Johnson’s ‘Looper’ Gets A September 28, 2012 Release Date
Roland Emmerich’s ‘Anonymous,’ Gerald Butler Vehicle ‘Playing The Field,’ Space Actioner ‘Lockout’ All Shuffle Dates
Source: Playlist

Of all the films to have gone before the cameras this year, Rian Johnson‘s “Looper” is one of our most anticipated. It’s a mindbending, violent time travel thriller, with the best script to date from the man behind “Brick” and “The Brothers Bloom”, and features a top-notch cast including Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Paul Dano, Jeff Daniels and more. After a fierce bidding war, the project, now in post-production, was snapped up by FilmDistrict, who’ll release the film through their deal with TriStar. With all going swimmingly, we were ready to sit back and enjoy the wait for the film, quietly crossing our fingers that it might even sneak onto the 2011 release schedule, but TriStar have announced a date, and unfortunately, it’s not going to be this year. In fact, it’ll be quite some way into 2012, with Box Office Mojo revealing that the film has a September 28, 2012 date planned, a whopping fifteen months from now, and Johnson later confirmed it to The Film Stage on Twitter, saying that “I’d love for it to be sooner, but it’s a good date for the movie, hopefully it’ll be worth the wait.” Indeed. Johnson’s last film, “The Brothers Bloom” also had a long wait before it hit screens, but this seems like a much happier position to be in, and it probably suggests that TriStar and FilmDistrict know they need some time to market a movie slightly off the beaten track, but one that has the potential to be a real crossover hit. We imagine the big reason for the far-off release is to capitalize on Gordon-Levitt’s heat coming off “The Dark Knight Rises,” which opens two months earlier. FilmDistrict have also moved a few more of their pictures around. The Luc Besson-produced sci-fi actioner “Lockout”—basically “Taken” in space—which stars Guy Pearce, Maggie Grace, Lennie James and Peter Stormare, has moved back a couple of months, from February 24 to April 13, 2012, while the sex and soccer comedy “Playing The Field,” which involves Gerald Butler working through a starry line-up of soccer moms, including Uma Thurman, Jessica Biel, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Judy Greer, and comes from “The Pursuit of Happyness” director Gabriele Muccino, is now slated on March 9th. In the more immediate future, IFC have moved the Kristin Scott-Thomas French thriller “Love Crime” back a week, to September 2nd, while the disappointing “Brighton Rock” has done the same, moving from August 19th to August 26th. Finally, the flat-out hilarious looking “Anonymous,” which sees “2012” helmer Roland Emmerich tackling the question of the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, with the likes of Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, David Thewlis, Edward Hogg, Jamie Campbell-Bower and Rafe Spall, has moved back a whole month, from September 30th to October 28th, a date it shares with another new addition to the schedule, the cult Sundance horror comedy “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil,” starring Alan Tudyck, Tyler Labine and Katrina Bowden, which Magnet, who just acquired the film, will release on the same day, with a VoD release coming sooner, on August 26th.
“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

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Respect: +1580
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #19 on: June 14, 2012, 06:32:47 PM »
0
Worthwhile blog post describing his thoughts on 3D

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7037
  • Respect: +1754
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #20 on: June 14, 2012, 11:39:13 PM »
0
That's a good read.  I'm a much bigger Rian Johnson fan than the next guy, but this makes some great points that gives even those of us who hate the current generation of 3D hope for its future.

Quote from: Rian Johnson
3D is absolutely analogous to the development of color film, and on that developmental timeline stereoscopic photography is the equivalent of hand-painting color onto black and white frames.

Love it.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

BB

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Respect: +90
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2012, 02:48:23 AM »
0
Admittedly, I'm not a fan of Rian Johnson's work thus far and perhaps that's coloring my judgment somewhat, but I feel he's dead wrong here. As with sound, audiences and filmmakers were clamoring for color film almost from the start. Hand-painting, tinting, Kinemacolor, etc. were reasonably common throughout the silent era, just as musicians or gramophones were often brought in to accompany screenings. Obviously, there was some resistance from purists, but once true color became economically and technologically feasible, it quickly took off and was the norm within about twenty years.

Stereoscopic filmmaking has existed in various forms since the 20s. Its supposed "golden era" lasted only about three years in the 50s. We've seen periodic revivals here and there but until today, it had never significantly taken off because every credible person without a vested interest in the technology regards it as a goofy distraction. 2D films provide an adequate -- if not excellent -- simulation of depth and dimension. Good deep focus photography on a nice big screen looks like you are staring out a window onto the scene. 3D as it currently stands does not. Nor do I believe it ever will no matter how refined the technology. How could it ever surpass a really good approximation of our natural vision? It's fine for a ride, but is otherwise pointless.

Talk of deeper immersion in the story is silly shit. Does anybody find going to the theater to be MORE immersive than watching a film? Done well, both are plenty immersive. Story, performance, and style immerse viewers, technology be damned. Johnson's appeal to true, organic depth makes no sense. In any case, it will be a simulation. If it's a hologram, it's still a SIMULATION. The only true, organic depth you'll see in a film is if you visit the set. Additionally, who cares? Have you ever watched a movie and thought, "I just can't feel the shape of this actor's face! GAH!"? Films look (or can look) so good today, it's ridiculous. Lenses are better now than they have ever been. The film that is available is terrific. As digital cameras develop their footage will look better and better. Already, they're pretty good for a lot things. CGI will soon be indistinguishable from real-life elements if the filmmakers have the time and budget. Of course, it's all mostly wasted. But it's there for the picking.

Where color and sound (and to a certain degree digital) were artistically motivated developments, 3D is purely a corporate enterprise and all corporate enterprises demand unmitigated progress. Even if it's senseless or detrimental to the ultimate product. Everybody involved (directors included) makes more money if movies are shown in 3D. I understand that it's in part a means to combat losses from piracy, but let's be real. Big movies today are making billions of dollars. BILLIONS. When the next evolution (be it 48fps3DIMAX or whatever) comes about, they will charge even more. My only hope for the future of 3D is that they make it prohibitively expensive and nobody goes and it all crumbles and the younger generation realizes they've been had so we can break the cycle.

Sorry for all the negativity.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5510
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +360
    • my site
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2012, 03:28:48 AM »
0
color and sound were artistically motivated? have you not seen singing in the rain?
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2012, 04:51:10 AM »
0
Sorry for all the negativity.

No, you're right.

Fuck Rian Johnson.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

BB

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Respect: +90
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2012, 11:29:04 AM »
0
color and sound were artistically motivated? have you not seen singing in the rain?

I'm not denying that there was a corporate element at play in the final push for transition. Moviemaking is a business, after all. I mean, it wasn't until television threatened film's dominion that color became standard.

But filmmakers had wanted color and sound from the start. There's no doubt. Fucking Edison and Eastman dyed frames to color them almost as soon as they were invented. And what of title cards? Scorebooks for theater pianists? Corporations just found a way to make a buck off of it.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #25 on: June 15, 2012, 11:35:42 AM »
0
Of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of .

There I think that makes sense now.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

BB

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Respect: +90
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #26 on: June 15, 2012, 12:23:09 PM »
0
God, I'm sorry. I didn't read that back. I sound like such a twat.

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7037
  • Respect: +1754
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #27 on: June 15, 2012, 12:59:17 PM »
0
Ouch. Right in the pet peeve.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5510
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +360
    • my site
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #28 on: June 15, 2012, 02:44:25 PM »
0

But filmmakers had wanted color and sound from the start. There's no doubt. Fucking Edison and Eastman dyed frames to color them almost as soon as they were invented. And what of title cards? Scorebooks for theater pianists? Corporations just found a way to make a buck off of it.

lots of great filmmakers didn't want sound, and a lot of great talents were ruined by sound. Buster Keaton being the primary example. I get what you're saying in general, but the historical approach you took seemed a little simplistic, which translated to the rest of your argument about 3d now. technology certainly makes filmmakers curious, and the meddling of money and studio finance does seem to make everything less pure, I'm just not sure if it's to the extent of what you're saying - where it's one evil entity ruling over all the working artists.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Rian Johnson
« Reply #29 on: June 16, 2012, 03:18:15 AM »
0
God, I'm sorry. I didn't read that back. I sound like such a twat.

No, I'm sorry, it was a drunk post.

I support your position here.

It's just that "off of" is the kind of thing Rian Johnson would say.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy