Just kidding.
But a lot of people are rethinking their Bruckheimer grudges because of CSI (the "crime scene investigation" TV show, and its spinoffs). I think this is dangerous.
I've seen one episode of CSI, and I wasn't impressed. The twist was actually predictable. I'm also unable to sympathyze with (or be interested in) pretentious crime scene investigators who think they are the cleverest people in the world (and the writers who write them). My general impression is... bleh. What has the world come to when something like this is critically acclaimed? Come on people.
Black Hawk Down was good, but it might have been propaganda...
i know people that believe CSI exists exactly like it appears on the television show. they have also claimed numerous times that they would like to be a part of CSI. watch them find out who shot JFK in the last episode
CSI is ridiculous. The setup is every scene you find a clue, and one of the investigators makes a bad pun, and you're onto the next scene.
Yes, thank goodness you folks say this. I can't stand CSI. I love the main actor, but that show is shlock. And everyone in my home town loves it because of the technical mumbo jumbo that (loosely) covers the shit plot and dialogue.
But I don't mind Bruckheimer. BHD was cool, I get a kick out of the Rock, for all his faults, he produces some half-decent action flicks.
Ummm... Jerry Bruckheimer isn't a director.
That's why I said "produces".
He, more so than any other producer that comes to mind nowadays, seems to be what I'd call a Creative Producer who is VERY actively involved in most of the process...
Quote from: MacGuffinUmmm... Jerry Bruckheimer isn't a director.
Close enough...
(besides, this had to be in the same forum as the Solondz thread)
His entertainment movies were pretty bad. CSI doesn't interest me at all but not much on tv does. My thinking for this show is that it is typical in devoting its entire episode to a crime and going through all the cute details of it that can be interesting, but not for this purpose...... with a minor human drama behind that is nothing more than anything seen and given time, will amount to who is fucking who.
Black Hawk Down is wonderful though. My number 1 movie of 2001. Curious JB, specific ideas on how it can be propagandic? I can kinda see it and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm not agreeing either. Maybe a discussion of sorts can come from this besides more post on obvious Bruckheimer bashing. I think what you call possible propaganda may really be just a choice in storytelling for the movie.
~rougerum
i watched a few episodes of csi. thought it was average at best. i dont like bruckheimer, but i will see his films. even though i usually really hate them, there may be some worthwhile moments.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetCurious JB, specific ideas on how it can be propagandic? I can kinda see it and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm not agreeing either. Maybe a discussion of sorts can come from this besides more post on obvious Bruckheimer bashing. I think what you call possible propaganda may really be just a choice in storytelling for the movie.
Like the need to have a conventional ending? Yeah, that could be. And it was the end that bothered me. All the action, free from politics, with only the blood, sweat, and tears of soldiers in survival mode, fascinated me, and I thought it was great. The end (like any recent Spielberg end) was completely wrong. Look! Heroes! These guys are friggin' heroes! Cheer for them as they march triumphantly, and cheer for America! Look at the American flags! Just look at them! I don't think it was a coincidence that this movie was released during the war on Afghanistan. Obviously it wasn't made at that time, but its editing (toward the end) and the timing of the release couldn't have been accidental.
I redeemed Jerry after going back and watching Flashdance.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: The Gold TrumpetCurious JB, specific ideas on how it can be propagandic? I can kinda see it and I'm not disagreeing, but I'm not agreeing either. Maybe a discussion of sorts can come from this besides more post on obvious Bruckheimer bashing. I think what you call possible propaganda may really be just a choice in storytelling for the movie.
Like the need to have a conventional ending? Yeah, that could be. And it was the end that bothered me. All the action, free from politics, with only the blood, sweat, and tears of soldiers in survival mode, fascinated me, and I thought it was great. The end (like any recent Spielberg end) was completely wrong. Look! Heroes! These guys are friggin' heroes! Cheer for them as they march triumphantly, and cheer for America! Look at the American flags! Just look at them! I don't think it was a coincidence that this movie was released during the war on Afghanistan. Obviously it wasn't made at that time, but its editing (toward the end) and the timing of the release couldn't have been accidental.
Hmm....I thought you would bring up other points, but fine. Actually, I didn't mind the ending and really don't think it went to down to promotion of the idea American soldiers are just heroes in general and everything is fine. Actually, the point that was being made was that they were ordinary guys put into situations where they may be called heroes but aren't going to go around telling other people that because no part of their experience made them feel like heroes. I liked this idea because it what was Sam Fuller spoke greatly about in his book when being a soldier by saying no one is hero, but sometimes do things that make them look that way by others. There may have been a little pandering at the end, but the message I got really wasn't that. And also, considering friends of mine who speak from a pure socialist view point, the eye is so much hungrier to search these little quibbles out and scream heresy and such. As much as I like them, I wish they would calm down more on these things because there is so much one can change. All in all, I think the camera may have illusioned to these things and some scenes showing a little patriotism and all, but I don't think that was the main point in it all.
~rougerum
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAll in all, I think the camera may have illusioned to these things and some scenes showing a little patriotism and all, but I don't think that was the main point in it all.
Yeah. I don't mean to say I hate the movie, or that I believe it was all propaganda. It
could be. The ending, though it makes me queasy, seems tacked on and completely separate from the rest.
It's those failed attempts to say "this is what this movie was all about" that annoy me...
jeremy, why cant i see your avatar? x
Quote from: themodernage02jeremy, why cant i see your avatar? x
I don't have one. Neither does Picolas. Don't worry, that will soon change. Dr. Xixax stole them from us.
Size does matter. Just ask blockbuster-meister Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer behind such larger-than-life Hollywood hits as Top Gun, Armageddon and Pearl Harbor. When it comes to the grand-tableau action epic, nobody does it better than Bruckheimer. This year alone, the prolific producer is responsible for no fewer than four major studio releases: Kangaroo Jack, Pirates of the Caribbean, Bad Boys II and the upcoming Veronica Guerin.
It should come as no surprise that the director he credits with influencing him most is none other than David Lean, whose spectacular tales sometimes proved too big for conventional 35mm filmmaking (Lean shot his most legendary epic, Lawrence of Arabia, in 70mm). Rather than asking him to predict the films that inspire the directors he hires -- "Each director comes to it with his own point of view and his own references. Some of them just want to create their own thing and don't want to look back," he says -- we asked Bruckheimer to tell us what he thinks about five of the biggest, brashest movies of all time. Here's what he picked...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bridge on the River Kwai
(1957; dir: David Lean, starring: William Holden, Alec Guinness)
The films that influenced me most were the David Lean movies: Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, Doctor Zhivago. I saw them in the order they were released. You look at David Lean's work, and visually it's stunning. I think Lean, just based on the little I know about him, was a real romantic himself. He started as a film editor, and film editors are usually great storytellers. They know how to craft a story for a character. Bridge on the River Kwai is about a Japanese prison camp and the British officer whom the Japanese entrust with getting the captured British soldiers to work on this bridge. Alec Guinness plays the commander in charge of the British, and the movie focuses on his stubbornness and the lengths to which he goes in order to protect his men. In the end, he takes a lot of pride when they finish the bridge, but what he doesn't know is that his men are planning to blow it up. So it's a character study with strong themes, a big scope, great characters and a fabulous concept.
Lawrence of Arabia
(1963, dir: David Lean, starring: Peter O'Toole, Alec Guinness)
Again, it's a phenomenal character study of a very complicated individual and his vision of what he believed in and how he lived out his dream. I love the chance that Lean took by hiring an unknown actor. He put Peter O'Toole in the lead role and made him a movie star, and he also cast a little-known Egyptian actor named Omar Sharif. What impresses me most is the sense of recognizing talent and sticking to his guns, rather than having a studio forcing him with the big name of the day. [When I'm producing a movie,] I get involved in everything. With casting, I'll see a tape of anyone who speaks. It's rare in my career that I've had a sure bet. With Flashdance, we cast an unknown girl, Jennifer Beals. The director had just finished a failed movie, but I took a shot because I believed that he was really talented [director Adrian Lyne went on to direct Fatal Attraction and Unfaithful]. On Beverly Hills Cop, we used Eddie Murphy, who had never carried a picture by himself, and we were told that no African-American actor could ever open a movie to more than $20 million. The movie did $234 million just in America back in 1985! Can you imagine what that would be today? And on Bad Boys, we took two TV actors, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence, who were not considered movie stars, and it turned out really well using a first-time director named Michael Bay. So those are all big risks.
Doctor Zhivago
(1965; dir: David Lean, starring: Omar Sharif, Julie Christie)
It's a classic love story (they just don't get any better!) set against the huge backdrop of the Russian revolution. I think Lean was a real romantic himself. It's just amazing the kind of movies he got to make, and they were very expensive movies in those days. He started as a film editor -- and film editors are usually great storytellers because they know how to craft a story for a character -- and then he hired people who would bolster him in the areas where maybe he wasn't as strong. I studied the quality kind of work that Lean did, and he consistently went back to a lot of the same technicians he had worked with in the past -- cinematographer Freddie Young and screenwriter Robert Bolt -- but also he also had the visual eye to create that stuff. We tried to do the same thing with Pirates of the Caribbean by hiring really gifted cinematographers and the writers who wrote Shrek, who are as good as you can get in Hollywood. You surround yourself with talented people, and they make you look good.
The Godfather
(1972; dir: Francis Ford Coppola, starring: Marlon Brando, Al Pacino)
I just love the richness of character and story and the execution. The phenomenal lighting and cinematography of Gordon Willis, the production design of Dean Tavoularis, the direction and writing of Coppola and the casting are all amazing. It's all about the people you hire. When it comes to picking talent, the only way to do it right is by doing your homework, seeing movies, caring about each individual piece of the puzzle. There's no detail that's too small to grab your attention. Even the dolly grip; if he has the right personality and work ethic, it makes everybody's life a lot easier. If you put the wrong guy in there, he could blow your whole movie. On The Godfather, Coppola did an amazing job choosing the people he hired to carry out his vision. He had such a rich drama with well-drawn characters, all put together by a master. I've never had a script with that kind of dramatic content: You've got a family that's being torn apart, and it's just fascinating how he establishes the characters, then carries through the plot. You care about these people, even though they were on the other side of the law.
The French Connection
(1971, dir: William Friedkin, starring: Gene Hackman, Roy Scheider)
It's like a locomotive. It never stops. The French Connection was a picture that was full of energy. I don't know if it holds up today, but it just went blasting forward. You couldn't take a breath, and I love that kind of drama. It showed cops working in very different ways. They went undercover as repairmen. You'd never seen that before. The only cops you saw on TV were "Dragnet" and "Route 66." It changed your perception of what was really going on in the world. The director and the writers took the time to research what was happening with law enforcement, and they brought it to the screen. It's fresh and unique, and that's what I love.