Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SIGH.....movies where the advertisement indicates one thing but really...............

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    This is the same as with songs. Hardly any good new songs for us. But the kids love them.

    As for the trailers misleading, the last time I watched a movie based on a trailer was, let me think, ... when i was less then 20 y/o.
    I hear my kids saying of the current offerings, "This is the best song of all time!" I say, If that is so they will be playing it in 20 years or per Beethoven, 200 years. Until then I am not impressed. So much for my "father of the year" award.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tamara
    replied
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    This is the same as with songs. Hardly any good new songs for us. But the kids love them.

    As for the trailers misleading, the last time I watched a movie based on a trailer was, let me think, ... when i was less then 20 y/o.
    Well, in this case, it's okay..............because I didn't pay to see the movie. I have been longing to see it ever since I saw the trailer, but never bought a copy, never paid to see it.

    Part of the problem with trailers (and summaries on the back) today is that they give away too much of the movie.

    Long ago, "Who's Killing the Great Chefs of Europe" was on a movie channel and it was being advertised with who was being killed how where.....and my Mother practically screamed because in a matter of a few seconds, they were giving away all the tension, anticipation of the flick, of who was going to get it next.

    Ever see "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun"? I saw a copy in a 1/2 Price once and the summary on the back got straight to the "punch line", wiped out the first hour of the movie in a few words. When I first saw it on TV as a child, I knew absolutely nothing of what was to come and enjoyed every moment getting there. That's the way I like my movies, going in blind.

    Like from "Dusk to Dawn". I knew nothing of it, picked it up because it was an ultraviolent flick. So when I got to that "punch line", it was totally unexpected, totally a surprise.

    Of course, surprises do go both ways, such as with the 007 franchise reboot with Royale that got me turned off on Bond flicks totally.

    I'll pick up a movie because who is in it or the box cover art (or these days, theme buying kicks)........but I really don't want to know what's coming. I want to be surprised.

    Leave a comment:


  • Doktor
    replied
    This is the same as with songs. Hardly any good new songs for us. But the kids love them.

    As for the trailers misleading, the last time I watched a movie based on a trailer was, let me think, ... when i was less then 20 y/o.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tamara
    replied
    Originally posted by bonehead View Post
    To be sure much of "entertainment" is a derivative from a handful of plots told by scribes a few thousand years ago. We just keep finding different ways of telling the same story. What I hate is yet another remake of "Robin hood" or "insert movie here", especially when each subsequent movie is worse than the one before. I have given up on paying to watch commercials ie regular TV. I do dabble in watching movies at home and watch "foreign" and independent movies from time to time to get a different vibe. Kind of like a poor mans vacation if you will. I find myself going full circle...going back to books. Now I find it kind of sad that all the book stores are going the way of video stores. Good books on hard copy are getting much more difficult to come by. I might have to rob a library and make a movie about it.
    Half Price and I are long time friends. Every month or so, I'll go there, come home with about a hundred dollars worth, their worth, of books or video TAPES, to go into rooms where the book shelves are STUFFED already, where I'm wondering where to build the next shelf. As I plan my castle, I am sure of two things. It's going to have a HUGE library and a BIG kitchen.

    As far as foreign flicks go, I have a lot, and I get on lots of kicks. For instance, a few months ago, I bought a lot of IDF/MOSSAD type flicks, many of them in Hebrew or French. The latter I was taught long ago in high school, the former I need to learn. There are, of course, subtitles, but something I've learned is that if you don't understand the sound, you aren't really sure who said it when it is read.

    Of the stories being retold, there have been a number over the years that have been great, like LEXX doing MacBeth. Or La Femme Nikita being a retelling of My Fair Lady which was a reteling of another story. To me, "The Bounty" is the best of them of them all.

    From the acting stand point, there is taking the character and making it your own. I've seen it in film such as what Richard Basehart did with Admiral Nelson, I've seen "directors" (really more my acting teachers) do it with my counterparts, and I suppose I have done it to a degree myself, but on the other side, one must realize that there is also what the director wants. Different people doing it makes for different flicks.

    Sometimes, it works wonderfully, like the two different Commander/Admiral Cain/Kane. Other times, not so, like with various Mr. Christainsens. Personally, I would love to be Dr. H. Floyd (2001/2010); I've played that part minorly in class. Or, Dr. J. Terrill (Day of the Dolphin); I was researching that part but went with Dr. Floyd instead. I go for those kind of parts, they appeal to me, but, on the side point, there is the interesting catch, for I've been told by coaches that they feel, at times, that my intellect is blocking my emotion.

    Of course, there are a number of catches. I do it for FUN; so many do it for money, if not their bread and butter. Further, my doing it for fun has required a great number of adjustments so I get my fun while being able to work in their world of making something for money. Long story short, there is the part, there is the real me, and in between, there is at least one alternate me, the fun character I want to be, who is working on the stage doing the part, who can play, be in character, and still interact with the director. Ie, once for a Greek or Shakespeare character (I forget which now), that fun character was a WW I spy, an actor, who is trying to impress an imaginary person in the audience so they can get close to them for a clandestine purpose.

    Getting back to the subject of what movies are today, this has at least two relative points. First, sure the action and special effect scenes, are fun to watch, but like I said, I want to feel what someone on the screen is feeling. I want to be them or for them to be me.....in some form. (I'll have to look back through my Oliver Reed movies and figure who I want to be in them). That's where my fun comes in watching flicks.

    Secondly, if it wasn't obvious, I have a very POWERFUL fantasy life. It does have some quite high points, advantages, in that it enables me to bring some unique aspects to my acting and dancing and for a stressful real world, I am not as easily affected. On the downside, though, it can mess with social interaction as that it overwhelms those who aren't familiar with such and other players around me don't always know what name to call me or when I am serious or acting. Further, it is so much a part of me that given our computer/TV screen world everywhere, each day I leave such a work world, it is quite a shock to come home to a plain apartment in a small town. Fortunately, I have avenues to compensate with, so the shock isn't overwhelming, such as playing some one I saw on the screen while doing something normal, ie, like the cooking scene in the trailer for "Red Blooded American Girl" (nudity alert).

    It's great when you can do it for fun, so you don't have to live like......."I was your typical struggling actress. I went to every audition, took a million acting, dancing and singing lessons, and spent years wondering where my next meal was coming from.". I don't have to worry where my next meal is coming from and my real work prevents me from auditioning, but I do end up taking every workshop I can........including the ones I have in about 7 hours today, so I better get away from this computer.

    Leave a comment:


  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by Tamara View Post
    Why does Hollywood makes all these remakes and not something new? Well for one thing, they already own the rights to the story and hence, that's a big part of the budget that they don't have to put out for. (a thing I learned in the film making classes when I was taking theatre) For us oldies, it's an interesting point to groan over for while the flick may be 'boring', production wise, it's rather a smart move.......and these days, smart moves are few and far between.

    Further, there is the kick about it with the young-ins in that they don't know, they don't realize that the new fangle dangle thing they are watching had its starts a generation or more before, such as with Battlestar Galactica or SWAT.

    About comedy being left to imagination, I think I like it that way, especially when it comes to intense, especially in "serious" shows. Like in The Man With The Golden Gun where 007 is interrogating Ms. Anders in her hotel room, threatening to tell Scaramanga about their conversation. "Who knows? He might use one of those little golden bullets on you and that would be a pity.........because they are frightfully expensive!". Or in "Live and Let Die" where the exchanges between Kotto and Moore are just fantastic. Bond may be being mean in his exchanges, but it's not direct, they truly are punch lines, and one does have to think for a moment about it. Just like in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" where Astronaut Brent asks the mutant leader, "When can we start to hope to be released?".........

    "You may start hoping anytime you please."

    Or in an episode of UFO, "The Square Triangle" where Straker subtle lets it in the conversation that they are consuming the drug now and then, "Would you care for more coffee?'.

    But that's another thing about the 60's, about what parents teach us. I was taught to look down at Red Skelton because, in the lesson, it's not humor if one has to laugh at their own jokes.

    About no build up and no waiting. In the 90's, I would watch Kolchak on Sci Fi, relive some of what I saw in the first run in the 70's. Then I got the series from Amazon and I realized how PLAIN the Sci Fi version was because they had cut out so much, probably for commercial space, so much of the development that builds the tension, makes it all so worth while to watch. It's like watching an older 50 minute long show like Star Trek and comparing it to a 40-42 minute modern show, like Charmed, and realizing just how pale the latter is in story. You get to the story height but in a second, it's over, they wrap it up, and then they are advertising for what's on next over the credits.

    SIGH, I don't know. Maybe it is something as we get older, we live more in our memories of what we have done, seek different ways to get our adrenaline fix. One thing I seek, believe in acting is that if you really want to be the person you are portraying, you have to know, feel their fears........and I certainly love that taste of tension, right or wrong, in the moments before door # 1 is opened. Of course, knowing this, looking back on the movies I have seen, it then makes me wonder of why I accepted it back then, such as with the comment I made about the Bond girls.

    But that bite of feeling where their minds are going in despair, into the unknown, I love it. It's just a simple set of lines, "You're going to hit me with a train?" (Stay Tuned), "You're going to kill me?" (Time Trackers), or other flicks, it's just something I can get into. A set of lines and what they do with it, how they do with it, because the camera reads thought (something I learned about being in front of a camera).

    I want to feel what they are (suppose to be) feeling.
    To be sure much of "entertainment" is a derivative from a handful of plots told by scribes a few thousand years ago. We just keep finding different ways of telling the same story. What I hate is yet another remake of "Robin hood" or "insert movie here", especially when each subsequent movie is worse than the one before. I have given up on paying to watch commercials ie regular TV. I do dabble in watching movies at home and watch "foreign" and independent movies from time to time to get a different vibe. Kind of like a poor mans vacation if you will. I find myself going full circle...going back to books. Now I find it kind of sad that all the book stores are going the way of video stores. Good books on hard copy are getting much more difficult to come by. I might have to rob a library and make a movie about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tamara
    replied
    Originally posted by bonehead View Post
    In general movies used to be more cerebral. More plot, more suspense, more acting, etc. Much of hollywood today is rehashing/remaking the same ground. In order to keep the audience each "new" movie has to be more over the top than the last remake. People of today (digital age) have shorter attention spans so everything has to be on the screen right now no build up and no waiting. Much of "comedy" genre has also changed from the 1960's. Now it is more out there and in your face where it used to be left more to your imagination and a bit more innocent. Hell, I would take the Carol Burnett show and Smothers brothers over any comedy on the TV today.

    I fully agree with Tom on the dumbing down of everyone in the country. At the risk of aging myself I missed the Smothers brothers show. There is a movie called "idiocracy" 2006. It is billed as a comedy but I see it as more of a sci-fi horror movie. That looks to be our future. In the 1960's we sent people to the moon using slide rules. Now, 40 years later, we can't get a good computer site for healthcare even after they had two years to do it. It is becoming difficult to just have a civil discussion over a worthwhile topic anymore.
    Why does Hollywood makes all these remakes and not something new? Well for one thing, they already own the rights to the story and hence, that's a big part of the budget that they don't have to put out for. (a thing I learned in the film making classes when I was taking theatre) For us oldies, it's an interesting point to groan over for while the flick may be 'boring', production wise, it's rather a smart move.......and these days, smart moves are few and far between.

    Further, there is the kick about it with the young-ins in that they don't know, they don't realize that the new fangle dangle thing they are watching had its starts a generation or more before, such as with Battlestar Galactica or SWAT.

    About comedy being left to imagination, I think I like it that way, especially when it comes to intense, especially in "serious" shows. Like in The Man With The Golden Gun where 007 is interrogating Ms. Anders in her hotel room, threatening to tell Scaramanga about their conversation. "Who knows? He might use one of those little golden bullets on you and that would be a pity.........because they are frightfully expensive!". Or in "Live and Let Die" where the exchanges between Kotto and Moore are just fantastic. Bond may be being mean in his exchanges, but it's not direct, they truly are punch lines, and one does have to think for a moment about it. Just like in "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" where Astronaut Brent asks the mutant leader, "When can we start to hope to be released?".........

    "You may start hoping anytime you please."

    Or in an episode of UFO, "The Square Triangle" where Straker subtle lets it in the conversation that they are consuming the drug now and then, "Would you care for more coffee?'.

    But that's another thing about the 60's, about what parents teach us. I was taught to look down at Red Skelton because, in the lesson, it's not humor if one has to laugh at their own jokes.

    About no build up and no waiting. In the 90's, I would watch Kolchak on Sci Fi, relive some of what I saw in the first run in the 70's. Then I got the series from Amazon and I realized how PLAIN the Sci Fi version was because they had cut out so much, probably for commercial space, so much of the development that builds the tension, makes it all so worth while to watch. It's like watching an older 50 minute long show like Star Trek and comparing it to a 40-42 minute modern show, like Charmed, and realizing just how pale the latter is in story. You get to the story height but in a second, it's over, they wrap it up, and then they are advertising for what's on next over the credits.

    SIGH, I don't know. Maybe it is something as we get older, we live more in our memories of what we have done, seek different ways to get our adrenaline fix. One thing I seek, believe in acting is that if you really want to be the person you are portraying, you have to know, feel their fears........and I certainly love that taste of tension, right or wrong, in the moments before door # 1 is opened. Of course, knowing this, looking back on the movies I have seen, it then makes me wonder of why I accepted it back then, such as with the comment I made about the Bond girls.

    But that bite of feeling where their minds are going in despair, into the unknown, I love it. It's just a simple set of lines, "You're going to hit me with a train?" (Stay Tuned), "You're going to kill me?" (Time Trackers), or other flicks, it's just something I can get into. A set of lines and what they do with it, how they do with it, because the camera reads thought (something I learned about being in front of a camera).

    I want to feel what they are (suppose to be) feeling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Those damn Sunbeam Alpines, always catching fire at the drop of a hat.

    Leave a comment:


  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by Tamara View Post
    Not quite sure how you are referring to the comedy of today. If it's a Sandra Bullock movie like "Gun Shy"

    that's one thing.

    But if it is "comedy" as what Tom Smothers commented once:

    "I'm watching television and I'm not seeing anything. I watch all the cable shows where you should see some looseness and you're not hearing anything. ...There's a general dumbing down of everybody in this country. ...It just kept going and going until it's gotten to the point where it's all mean-spirited and vulgar. It not only affects comedy, it affects film. It affects literature. It's pervasive on radio. There's that guy Howard Stern and all that smart ass, vulgar, sexual pretending like they're expanding freedom of speech. They ought to put an amendment to the First Amendment that says there shall also be freedom of hearing." (Chicago Tribune interview; November 28, 2002)

    ............that's another thing.

    Interestingly enough, I think Tom is right....and I think my mother, if she was around and I told her, would agree with him. Interestingly because as a child, I was taught by my parents not to put that much credit to them.....by what parents say in comments that children pick up and take to heart.

    As far as action movies of today, I don't know......because I think the last action flicks I saw outside the home were Casino Royale and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Difficult to pin to as why not (didn't like the change in the 007 franchise; don't like being in theatre audiences anymore) but unconsciously, it might be that the action movie of today produces characters that I really don't care about.

    Going through IMDB's list oftop action flicks, there are ones like "Jumper", "Mission: Impossible", "Star Trek", and "Grindhouse" had heroes who were jerks, mean to each other, didn't care about other people, and weren't that likeable................kind of like what Mr. Smothers said above.

    If that's what makes a movie today, then they can do it without my dollar. In fact, I think it was the second Mission: Impossible movie and in the early moments when I saw how snappish they were to each other, I turned it off and never went back.

    So, if that standard is what you are referring to................................................ .

    In general movies used to be more cerebral. More plot, more suspense, more acting, etc. Much of hollywood today is rehashing/remaking the same ground. In order to keep the audience each "new" movie has to be more over the top than the last remake. People of today (digital age) have shorter attention spans so everything has to be on the screen right now no build up and no waiting. Much of "comedy" genre has also changed from the 1960's. Now it is more out there and in your face where it used to be left more to your imagination and a bit more innocent. Hell, I would take the Carol Burnett show and Smothers brothers over any comedy on the TV today.

    I fully agree with Tom on the dumbing down of everyone in the country. At the risk of aging myself I missed the Smothers brothers show. There is a movie called "idiocracy" 2006. It is billed as a comedy but I see it as more of a sci-fi horror movie. That looks to be our future. In the 1960's we sent people to the moon using slide rules. Now, 40 years later, we can't get a good computer site for healthcare even after they had two years to do it. It is becoming difficult to just have a civil discussion over a worthwhile topic anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tamara
    replied
    Originally posted by bonehead View Post
    That was standard form of "comedy" back in the day. A lot more reserved than the comedy/action movies of today.
    Not quite sure how you are referring to the comedy of today. If it's a Sandra Bullock movie like "Gun Shy"

    that's one thing.

    But if it is "comedy" as what Tom Smothers commented once:

    "I'm watching television and I'm not seeing anything. I watch all the cable shows where you should see some looseness and you're not hearing anything. ...There's a general dumbing down of everybody in this country. ...It just kept going and going until it's gotten to the point where it's all mean-spirited and vulgar. It not only affects comedy, it affects film. It affects literature. It's pervasive on radio. There's that guy Howard Stern and all that smart ass, vulgar, sexual pretending like they're expanding freedom of speech. They ought to put an amendment to the First Amendment that says there shall also be freedom of hearing." (Chicago Tribune interview; November 28, 2002)

    ............that's another thing.

    Interestingly enough, I think Tom is right....and I think my mother, if she was around and I told her, would agree with him. Interestingly because as a child, I was taught by my parents not to put that much credit to them.....by what parents say in comments that children pick up and take to heart.

    As far as action movies of today, I don't know......because I think the last action flicks I saw outside the home were Casino Royale and Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Difficult to pin to as why not (didn't like the change in the 007 franchise; don't like being in theatre audiences anymore) but unconsciously, it might be that the action movie of today produces characters that I really don't care about.

    Going through IMDB's list oftop action flicks, there are ones like "Jumper", "Mission: Impossible", "Star Trek", and "Grindhouse" had heroes who were jerks, mean to each other, didn't care about other people, and weren't that likeable................kind of like what Mr. Smothers said above.

    If that's what makes a movie today, then they can do it without my dollar. In fact, I think it was the second Mission: Impossible movie and in the early moments when I saw how snappish they were to each other, I turned it off and never went back.

    So, if that standard is what you are referring to................................................ .

    Leave a comment:


  • bonehead
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    After seeing the trailer, I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion it was meant to be a comedy......
    That was standard form of "comedy" back in the day. A lot more reserved than the comedy/action movies of today.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tamara
    replied
    Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
    After seeing the trailer, I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion it was meant to be a comedy......
    ........probably from too many viewings of "Funny Farm".........

    Leave a comment:


  • bigross86
    replied
    After seeing the trailer, I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion it was meant to be a comedy......

    Leave a comment:


  • SIGH.....movies where the advertisement indicates one thing but really...............

    After years of seeing this trailer on the NET


    I was finally able to see it.

    SIGH, for the absolute 60's comedy the trailer indicates it is, it isn't quite that.

    Not quite a total disappointment, but certainly a downer in a few places.

    All goes to show at least two things. First, just like today, there is poetic licence in movie advertising.

    Secondly, perspective counts a lot!
Working...
X