Quote from: Duck Sauce

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Duck SauceIs he going to continue to write movies using both names perhaps?

SPOILER

Donald is dead.

Or is he?

Or isn't he?








No, yeah, he is.

i finally saw this. i'm not totally sure how i feel about it.
someone tell me what the boom mic coming into the top of the shot a few times was supposed to mean?

Quote from: bigideassomeone tell me what the boom mic coming into the top of the shot a few times was supposed to mean?

That means the projectionist in your theater needs to be fired.

that's true. i could never read any of the subtitles. i hope there wasn't any important info given through subtitles. the opening sequence of the film had the bottom portion of the frame above it, so someone went and told the projector..........so the boom mic wasn't meant to be seen? i thought it was part of the film seriously.

this happened to me during both ranson and hannibal. most projectionists have no love for film. they even treat them like... shit.

Speaking as a projectionnist, I can tell you we're not all like that. I, personally, am always careful to get the best framing possible. I have been known to treat trailers poorly, though.

Yeah, I was the head projectionist for two years at my theater back home and while I was there, I ran a pretty tight ship.

I think that a lot of the problem has to do with the fact that most major chain theaters are now making the managers the projectionists.  These are people who don't spend time with the film and the equipment.  Also, now they're pulling the green bands off the trailers and that's the best time to frame a film when you start it.  

I'm actually volunteering at SXSW this year on the film revision crew... I'll have to build up and break down films again... I haven't done it in a couple of years... Hope I still have the stuff.

I finally saw this movie last night. Here are my thoughts.

I really, really liked it. But I liked it when it had it's own voice--before it deviated into the conventional movie. Once it did that, I fucking hated it. I mean looooathed it. I got it. I got what it was trying to do--what it was saying--but that doesn't mean I liked it (yes, yes, I know it was the contrast between conventional and artistic or original. I know it was showing the evolution being forced upon it and you weren't even supposed to like it.). But that still doesn't mean the point was made the best way it could have been.

As for the message: the world forces it's inhabitants to adapt to their environments. And in order to experience life, one must change--usually not for the best (as the movie showed). But everyone owes it to themselves to be a dynamic character rather than living their life as a static one.

Was in WHSmith today and was reading a kick ass indepth article on Adaptation. I didn't have my credit card so I couldn't buy it, but will sometime soon. I'm trying to remember everything- it was set up kind of like a diary of how Charlie Kauffman wrote the script.

- Much of what is in the movie really happened (no shit)- i.e. him in the restaurant talking about adapting the book. Some funny stuff though, comments from the real Susan Orlean on how she felt when she read the script and found out that she was in it- she said the script was fascinating, but she was a little reluctant at first to let them use her name. Eventually she gave in, and she thought it was funny/weird that Charlie jacks off to her picture in it

- Charlie Kauffman wanted to return the advance money he was given to adapt The Orchid Theif because he couldn't think of anything.

- Jonathen Demme let Spike direct after he saw Being John Malcovich.

- Demme and the producers were a little confused when they got the first draft from Charlie because they had no idea who Donald Kauffman was. It wasn't until they read it when they found out 'the truth.'

-It took Spike Jonze 18 months to edit it! That's the second longest editing job in Columbia movie history! (I forgot the first one, it wasn't a movie I was familiar with) He said that because of the non-linear structure he was exploring a number of different possibilites in the editing room. He also said that the first cut was 4 hours long and incredibly bad, he stressed the word "awful."

There was a lot more cool stuff about it, but I can't remember exactly. I'll try to by the mag this weekend and will type it all up and post.

Quote from: RegularKarateYeah, I was the head projectionist for two years at my theater back home and while I was there, I ran a pretty tight ship.

I think that a lot of the problem has to do with the fact that most major chain theaters are now making the managers the projectionists.  These are people who don't spend time with the film and the equipment.  Also, now they're pulling the green bands off the trailers and that's the best time to frame a film when you start it.  

I'm actually volunteering at SXSW this year on the film revision crew... I'll have to build up and break down films again... I haven't done it in a couple of years... Hope I still have the stuff.

Yeah, I work at one of those chain theatres, but they let supervisors do it, so we take it a bit more seriously. We're up there all the time and it's all we have to do. That's what's bad with having managers do it, they just thread the films and go back to work, doing something else. Tsk Tsk.

Yeah... we had walkie talkies and were constantly making the rounds to make sure nothing was starting to wrap and everything was still framed.

In fact, only projectionists were even allowed up there, unless there was something important that needed to be said.  We even occasionally kicked Managers out of the booth.

you never know what to expect from kaufman / jonze so, seeing the boom mic, i began to run all these theories about the movie was a movie being filmed while it was written
...or something like that

I loved this movie. Tied with PDL I think.

Anyway, it reminded me of Barton Fink in many ways, writers in self-imposed hells, apocalyptic endings.

Theory: Donald's script, The Three, featured three people who were all one person. If you think about it, the three main characters in Adaptation, Charlie, Laroche, and Susan, were all one person in their desire for something to love, something to obsess about. I don't know what the significance of that is, but it's something.

Things I loved about Adaptation:

The opening, which caused us to giggle uncontrollably.
Meryl Streep growling 'You fat fuck!' - unforgettable.
Nicholas Cage - totally managed to make me forget he was the same actor, specially in the heart to heart.

I didn't like the movie as much as the screenplay though. I was just conscious all the time of how great the writing was and how the actual film didn't quite match up. I don't know why. Same with Being John Malkovich in a way. That movie leaves me cold for some reason, even though I admire the concept. I enjoyed Adaptation much more though, and as a screenplay at least it's much stronger than PDL, though the comparison is pointless.

I agree that comparing Adaptation and Punch Drunk Love is pointless. One thing I thoroughly enjoyed was Brian Cox's Robert McKee monologue on stage. the other very memorable parts would be anything that came out of Chris Cooper's mouth (the lines.. not the teeth) and the unforgettable climax. Whatta film.